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

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."

Comments

There is much, much worse!

[Frosty Piss]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Gay Boner Sex]

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.

Re:There is much, much worse!

[Z80a]

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

Re:There is much, much worse!

[jellomizer]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[The123king]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[dougdonovan]

it starts with the parents people but thats common knowledge.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:There is much, much worse!

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:There is much, much worse!

[c]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[ganjadude]

so a budweiser is ok but a pepsi isnt?

Re: There is much, much worse!

[alexgieg]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[computational super]

Think of the Children

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Oswald McWeany]

Budweiser is never OK. It serves no purpose.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[edtice1559]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ?

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Humbubba]

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?

Re: There is much, much worse!

[BronsCon]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Tyr07]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[epyT-R]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[epyT-R]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[anegg]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Humbubba]

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!

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Austerity Empowers]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Cederic]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re: There is much, much worse!

[sjames]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[JudgeFurious]

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

Re:There is much, much worse!

[thegarbz]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[ganjadude]

true.....true

Re:There is much, much worse!

[otomoton]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[mysidia]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[RobertSteinbach]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Gay Boner Sex]

Hehehe

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Cipheron]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:There is much, much worse!

[hvidstue]

Why would one learn to alter a child?

Re:There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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."

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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. :-)

Re: There is much, much worse!

[sjames]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[dtmancom]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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).

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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

Yeah, I am still gonna submit this reply.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[PoopJuggler]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

male victims...

Stupid tablet.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[BronsCon]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[BronsCon]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

> 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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[BronsCon]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[AmiMoJo]

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).

Re: There is much, much worse!

[ganjadude]

natty light for example

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Megol]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[BronsCon]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Lies. Coors Light HAS no taste!

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

We are all guilty. LOL

Re: There is much, much worse!

[KGIII]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[HornWumpus]

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

Czech Budweiser is good.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[BronsCon]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[eric_harris_76]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[sjames]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[beastofburdon]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[beastofburdon]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Brockmire]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Brockmire]

"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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Brockmire]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[BronsCon]

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

Re: There is much, much worse!

[Rakarra]

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.

Re: There is much, much worse!

[sjames]

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.

Let's do some research first

[religionofpeas]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Anonymous Coward]

Are guns a stepping stone to shooting people?

Re:Let's do some research first

[Opportunist]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Tranzistors]

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?

Re:Let's do some research first

[hawguy]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Razed By TV]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[religionofpeas]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[hawguy]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[mrbester]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Bert64]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[jandersen]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[gijoel]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Tranzistors]

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?

Re:Let's do some research first

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[sheramil]

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".

Re:Let's do some research first

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What about a silenced bow?

Re:Let's do some research first

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Big Hairy Ian]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[ranton]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[swb]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[ortholattice]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Cro Magnon]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[Rockoon]

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?

Re:Let's do some research first

[Megol]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[Megol]

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).

Re:Let's do some research first

[Maritz]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[Maritz]

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.)

Re:Let's do some research first

[Maritz]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[bluefoxlucid]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[ceoyoyo]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[epyT-R]

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

Re:Let's do some research first

[CanadianMacFan]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[blindseer]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Pfhorrest]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[GuB-42]

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.

Re: Let's do some research first

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Let's do some research first

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Let's do some research first

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Then suppressed, OK, same difference.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:Let's do some research first

[HornWumpus]

There are fuckwits claiming to have PTSD from harshly worded tweets. Nobody takes them seriously, but they exist.

Re:Let's do some research first

[HornWumpus]

The age of consent in Vatican city was recently raised, to fourteen.

Re:Let's do some research first

[Aighearach]

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.

takes one to know one?

[ooloorie]

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".

Re:takes one to know one?

[Opportunist]

Remember: If you think of the children all the time, you're likely a pedo.

Re:takes one to know one?

[AmiMoJo]

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?

Re:takes one to know one?

[gweihir]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[Opportunist]

Same logic as with anything sexually related: It's icky and we don't want to think about it.

Re:takes one to know one?

[gweihir]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[Mashiki]

Like Obama's Mus^H^H^H travel ban

Fixed that for you. It was Obama's list.

Re:takes one to know one?

[swillden]

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).

Re:takes one to know one?

[Rockoon]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[Rockoon]

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,

Re:takes one to know one?

[Megol]

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!

Re:takes one to know one?

[Maritz]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[ooloorie]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[drew_kime]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[strikethree]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[gweihir]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[gweihir]

Indeed. If I get a choice next incarnation, then it will be "most certainly not with this bunch of fuckups again".

Re:takes one to know one?

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[alleycat0]

>what is the harm in doing it with a piece of silicon?

Umm, chafing?

Re:takes one to know one?

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:takes one to know one?

[gweihir]

That was the "robot brain" part, but apparently nobody gets it. For the body, it would indeed be silicone or some rubber.

Seriously?

[Mal-2]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[sexconker]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[gweihir]

How long did you need to torture the facts to come up with _that_?

Re:Seriously?

[Jamu]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[fafalone]

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).

Re:Seriously?

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[Maritz]

Thanks for raising this point, it was only brought up about a hundred other times in the thread.

Re:Seriously?

[dbIII]

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?

Re:Seriously?

[david_thornley]

Yeah, but the computations get real hairy with rotating reference frames.

Re:Seriously?

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Seriously?

[Tranzistors]

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?

Re:Seriously?

[HornWumpus]

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.

What could possibly go wrong?

[Kokuyo]

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.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[lucm]

That's like Walmart who stopped selling toy guns but keep seeling real ones.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[bickerdyke]

Current state of the US, I could see this happen AND people calling it sensible.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Kokuyo]

Uhhh, abusing children is illegal in Switzerland, obviously. I'm not sure your analogy fits there.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[fafalone]

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.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Bearhouse]

and bizarrely, in Switzerland prostitution is legal...

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Kokuyo]

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?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[david_thornley]

Ever notice all the outcry over any popular thing teenagers come up with to do that doesn't involve sex or drugs?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[blindseer]

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!!

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

[Rakarra]

Ah yes, the crazy unsupported-by-anything refugee hysteria machine continues on.

Re: What could possibly go wrong?

[lucm]

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/...

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Zurkeyon3733]

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?...

Obligatory Futurama reference

[Nutria]

Don't Date Robots!

Re:Obligatory Futurama reference

[93 Escort Wagon]

All of civilization was just an effort to impress the opposite sex. ... And, sometimes, the same sex.

Re:Obligatory Futurama reference

[93 Escort Wagon]

Mom, Love, and Screen Door are registered trademarks of MomCorp.

What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[FlyHelicopters]

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?

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[Opportunist]

Huh? Which religion is against fucking children?

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[RuffMasterD]

Interesting, but you completely missed the whole point where this is about people fucking ROBOTS.

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I replace Pedophile with "Black people", "Homosexuals", "Transpeople", "Women", or "Homeless people", it makes you sound like all kinds of bigot.

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[FlyHelicopters]

If a pedo never touches a real child, they can have all the thoughts they want, I really don't care...

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[FlyHelicopters]

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? ;)

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Dog-Cow]

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.

masturbation

[Anonymous Coward]

sex with a robot is just masturbation, nothing else.

Re:have you read the actual story...?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Uhh... how about the opposite?

[ckatko]

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?

Re:Uhh... how about the opposite?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Uhh... how about the opposite?

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:Uhh... how about the opposite?

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Uhh... how about the opposite?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Uhh... how about the opposite?

[Rakarra]

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.

Duuuude

[schleimkeim]

That guy thinks an awful lot about sex robots.

In democratura lands

[Max_W]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[quenda]

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

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[magusxxx]

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.

Re:Ban ALL sex with robots.

[Visarga]

What about the hand? Do we ban sex with one's hand?

PhD students in liberal arts colleges ....

[JeffColeman]

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?

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[h33t l4x0r]

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

Re:have you read the actual story...?

[Opportunist]

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.

Subject vs Object

[lawideawake]

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.

Re:Subject vs Object

[djinn6]

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.

Re:Subject vs Object

[sheramil]

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?

Re:Subject vs Object

[goose-incarnated]

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.

Re:Subject vs Object

[djinn6]

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.

Seriously!

[LeMeilleurNeha]

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

Re:A non issue

[serviscope_minor]

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.

There Ought To Be A Law

[mentil]

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."

Re:There Ought To Be A Law

[rickyslashdot]

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".

Re:There Ought To Be A Law

[Rakarra]

Alimony doesn't reflect modern societal values?

Re:There Ought To Be A Law

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[stealth_finger]

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.

Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

The USA maybe

[Bruce66423]

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...

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

REALITY CHECK

[cheetah_spottycat]

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.

Re:REALITY CHECK

[l20502]

Getting funding so they can build their own for "research".

Re:REALITY CHECK

[GrumpySteen]

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.

Re:REALITY CHECK

[cheetah_spottycat]

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.

Re:REALITY CHECK

[GrumpySteen]

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.

Re:REALITY CHECK

[strikethree]

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?

Robot Cruelty

[MrL0G1C]

These robots have been programmed to want sex and you're denying it to them, that's robot cruelty professor no sex.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[gweihir]

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

Re:Ban ALL sex with robots.

[Chrisq]

What about the hand? Do we ban sex with one's hand?

That's a sticky question.

"upcoming robot revolution"

[andreas.hummelbrunne]

Did I miss something? Which upcoming robot revolution? Is there a set date?

Re:"upcoming robot revolution"

[Chrisq]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Jamu]

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

What a disingenuous ass.

[bistromath007]

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?

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Bert64]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Dog-Cow]

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?

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Dog-Cow]

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?

I don't undersatand the logic behind this

[RuffMasterD]

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.

Re:I don't undersatand the logic behind this

[strikethree]

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.

Re:I don't undersatand the logic behind this

[david_thornley]

- 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.

Permission Based Society

[JimSadler]

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.

Re:Permission Based Society

[Vitriol Angst]

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.

A bedroom is private

[angel'o'sphere]

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?

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Gorobei]

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."

Absurdity

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re: You're not guilty for being born a pedosexual

[Dog-Cow]

You seem to have an interest in raping your sister. No one will investigate because no one cares about your sister.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[h33t l4x0r]

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

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You don't need a pedophile to molest children.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[gweihir]

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

Makes me sick to my stomach

[burtosis]

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.

Re:Makes me sick to my stomach

[freeze128]

Today's 18-year-old sex robots are unattractive because they still use altavista and floppy drives.

Re:Makes me sick to my stomach

[david_thornley]

And nobody wants a sexbot with a floppy drive.

Not Child-Like

[wisnoskij]

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.

Re:Not Child-Like

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:have you read the actual story...?

[phayes]

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.

Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Another Orientation

[sycodon]

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.

Re: Another Orientation

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't take kindly to you robosexuals around these parts!

Re:Another Orientation

[Maritz]

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy, beloved of idiots.

Re:Another Orientation

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[Tyr07]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[anegg]

No doubt... science fiction has already been on the job exploring consequences like this.

Re:Another Orientation

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[Cederic]

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?

Re:Another Orientation

[Tyr07]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[neilo_1701D]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[Ol Olsoc]

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...

Re:Another Orientation

[Cederic]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[Rakarra]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[AvderTheTerrible]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[Tyr07]

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.

Re: Another Orientation

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Another Orientation

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Another Orientation

[KGIII]

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.

Re: Another Orientation

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Another Orientation

[david_thornley]

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.

Re: Another Orientation

[HornWumpus]

The 'I'm a lesbian, trapped in a man's body' line didn't work?

It never does.

Re:Another Orientation

[HornWumpus]

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.

My point of view

[DontBeAMoran]

As long as they don't ban cat-girls... just make them look "18~21 years old".

Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Megol]

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...

Re:Ban ALL sex with robots.

[lpq]

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]?

What is the difference

[John.Banister]

between child robots and small robots? If you give 'em elf ears, then the character they depict is generally about 150 years old, right?

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Megol]

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.

Re:have you read the actual story...?

[Opportunist]

What could possibly be more suited to fit the female anatomy than what is supposed to fit in there???

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[alexgieg]

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

What call for a ban?

[edjs]

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.

Not even Sharkey is doing research here

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[computational super]

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

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Oswald McWeany]

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

Strawman much?

Re:Your honor...

[goose-incarnated]

Australia agrees that small breasts means underage

How do they determine underage males?

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Dog-Cow]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Jhon]

"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'.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[stealth_finger]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Jhon]

"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".

hmmm...

[danlor]

Isn't this the exact opposite thing we should do?

If I had to pick...

[plazman30]

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.

Re:If I had to pick...

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[parkinglot777]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Where to draw the line?

[Casandro]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Qzukk]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Jamu]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Theaetetus]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[computational super]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Cederic]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[RobertSteinbach]

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!

this reminds me of

[norweeg]

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....

Rule of thumb

[TJ_Phazerhacki]

'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.

Forget about the robots....

[njrabit]

Forget the child sex robots, look at all the people who want to have sex with human-animal hybrids.

Not getting a sexbot

[Cipheron]

... unitl they can take a shower by themselves. Having to clean your sexbot would be the worst part.

Define "childlike" please.

[blindseer]

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!

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Rakarra]

I think you missed the AC's point!

What a pointless post

[dbIII]

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?

Re:What a pointless post

[Tranzistors]

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?

Re:What a pointless post

[dbIII]

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.

Re:What a pointless post

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:What a pointless post

[dbIII]

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.

Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[KGIII]

Right? It could have been from the government directly.

A modest proposal

[quenda]

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.

Re:A modest proposal

[RockDoctor]

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.

Kinda sad, actually.

[NoSalt]

A robot like this could actually be a good form of therapy or an outlet for people suffering from pedophilia.

Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[HornWumpus]

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

Re: Make their USE/DISPLAY illegal...

[Brockmire]

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.