'Call for ban on child s%x robots'!!!!

[Nearly Sane]

My gut reaction was yeuuurghhh!

Second reaction was but of course they should be banned

But third reaction was why?


But mainly still with the gut reaction!

(the forum software agrees and needed me to edit the title.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40428976

[floo]

That is AWFUL, they should be banned!

I remember being shocked  and horrified a while back when I saw  girl's T shirts for under fives, bearing the logo, "I am sexy!" What an invitation to paedophiles! Any parents being stupid enough to buy one for their daughters should have been investigated by Social Services.

[Nearly Sane]

That is AWFUL, they should be banned!

I remember being shocked  and horrified a while back when I saw  girl's T shirts for under fives, bearing the logo, "I am sexy!" What an invitation to paedophiles! Any parents being stupid enough to buy one for their daughters should have been investigated by Social Services.

But other than the gut reaction, why should it be banned?

[floo]

Why do you think, should paedophiles be able to use them to satisfy their perverted needs until a real child is available?  

[Shaker]

That is AWFUL, they should be banned!

I remember being shocked  and horrified a while back when I saw  girl's T shirts for under fives, bearing the logo, "I am sexy!" What an invitation to paedophiles!

Surely the mere existence of children, irrespective of what they're wearing, is itself an invitation to paedophiles.

[ad_orientem]

Better a robot than a real person. Yes, it's creepy and odd is an understatement. The question is, would it fuel or quench the appetite.

[Shaker]

Why do you think, should paedophiles be able to use them to satisfy their perverted needs until a real child is available?

You would need to demonstrate, not assume, that a paedophile would move on from a robot to an actual child.

It could be that the automata are deemed an acceptable substitute, thus lowering the danger to children.

I've no idea which may be the case, but I'm not presuming to guess either.

[Nearly Sane]

Why do you think, should paedophiles be able to use them to satisfy their perverted needs until a real child is available?

That isn't a reason.

[Nearly Sane]

Better a robot than a real person. Yes, it's creepy and odd is an understatement. The question is, would it fuel or quench the appetite.

Agree, I don't think it's clear.

[floo]

Of course it is a reason, their perversion should not be pandered to.

[Shaker]

Of course it is a reason, their perversion should not be pandered to.

Not even with dolls rather than actual children?

[floo]

Not even with dolls rather than actual children?

But they could easily move on to abuse children.

[Nearly Sane]

But they could easily move on to abuse children.

Which they could without the robots, and perhaps won't because of the robots. It doesn't seem clear to me that you can make either assumption.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it is a reason, their perversion should not be pandered to.

Why not? Who would they be harming?

[Shaker]

But they could easily move on to abuse children.

They could - but do they in actuality? That's the issue, surely.

It may be the case that, for want of a better term, expending a sexual attraction to children on dolls may lower the threat to actual children. This seems to have been behind the precipitous plunge in sexual offences when Scandinavian countries liberalised pornography in the 1960s and 70s.

I don't know this - your case may be correct. But with the safety of children at stake I think it would be worth finding out.

[Rhiannon]

My concern is around all sex dolls. They could serve a legitimate purpose, true, but as we are seeing with young people believing violentl/coercive/humiliating sex to be the norm because of extreme porn bring so widely available, so I fear that using dolls for satisfaction toon may - may - lead to more extreme/abudive firms of sex, which then becomes normalised for that person when they attempt a real relationship. Who knows?

[Nearly Sane]

There are obviously legitimate questions but I don't think the gut reaction that it's disgusting is useful in working out what will be the best decision here. There is an element similar to the charge that playing video games makes people more violent without necessarily any evidence.

[floo]

Maybe NS should set up a poll on this topic.

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe NS should set up a poll on this topic.

I generally prefer discussions as simply ticking a box tells you nothing. A poll can be a useful starter for ten but beyond that I don't see the point. If you want a poll, you could set one up yourself.

[Rhiannon]

There are obviously legitimate questions but I don't think the gut reaction that it's disgusting is useful in working out what will be the best decision here. There is an element similar to the charge that playing video games makes people more violent without necessarily any evidence.

My gut feeling isn't that s e x dolls - adult ones - are disgusting in and of themselves, any more than porn is, or indeed s e x in general. I think though that they could normalise abusive s e x for some people.

As for child s e x dolls...do we even know enough about paedophilia to judge?

[Nearly Sane]

My gut feeling isn't that s e x dolls - adult ones - are disgusting in and of themselves, any more than porn is, or indeed s e x in general. I think though that they could normalise abusive s e x for some people.

As for child s e x dolls...do we even know enough about paedophilia to judge?

They might but that you think they might isn't much to make a decision on. As to whether we know enough, I doubt we di, and I am not even sure how we could find out. However, banning them on that basis may also mean there is more child abuse, there isn't a position here that does not have consequences.

[Shaker]

They might but that you think they might isn't much to make a decision on. As to whether we know enough, I doubt we di, and I am not even sure how we could find out.

I would start with people with professional qualifications, titles in front of their names and letters after. Seem a reasonable launching pad to me.

[wigginhall]

There were similar arguments about drawings and cartoons of children, catering for paedophiles.   There seem to be two obvious arguments here - one, that this will keep paedophiles quiet, and keep them away from children, and two, that it will encourage them to seek out children.   Not being an expert on paedophilia, I have no idea if either is true or none.   I think the US permits some kinds of cartoon like this, on grounds of free speech, but they are banned in the UK.   But it's an interesting line of enquiry, that paedophiles can be helped to not act out their desires.

[Shaker]

There were similar arguments about drawings and cartoons of children, catering for paedophiles.   There seem to be two obvious arguments here - one, that this will keep paedophiles quiet, and keep them away from children, and two, that it will encourage them to seek out children.   Not being an expert on paedophilia, I have no idea if either is true or none.   I think the US permits some kinds of cartoon like this, on grounds of free speech, but they are banned in the UK.   But it's an interesting line of enquiry, that paedophiles can be helped to not act out their desires.

My stance entirely, wiggy - I was thinking of such images too. It could go either way, and I know I'm not qualified to know, though some others may be.

Two things I regard as fairly uncontroversial:

1. Sexual orientation isn't chosen;

2. Suppressing it or trying to do so frequently has unforeseen and generally negative consequences for someone somewhere.

[Nearly Sane]

Adding to the problem is that people aren't robots, or perhaps they are buy we cannot see the programming. It's perfectly possible that these dolls may work as substitutes for some paedophiles who might otherwise abuse children, and inflame the desire in some who might otherwise not.