• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Robot Pedophilia

Piscivore

Smelling fishy
Piscivore
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
27,388
Location
Home is wherever I'm with you
We had an interesting discussion not long ago about a pedo who was arrested for posessing faked pictures of naked children. This (and a recent TV cop show) leads me to another question. What do you think would be the moral an legal ramifications of sex robots that appear indistinguishable from a child?
 
I think it would be enormously creepy. While I personally don't think it should be illegal, I bet it would be.
 
Piscivore said:
We had an interesting discussion not long ago about a pedo who was arrested for posessing faked pictures of naked children. This (and a recent TV cop show) leads me to another question. What do you think would be the moral an legal ramifications of sex robots that appear indistinguishable from a child?
Click to expand...

If no one is harmed, I don't have a problem with it. We would have to see if it actually increased the frequency of sexual assault on minors, but the libertarian in me says it should have the benefit of the doubt.

How about the flip side? In the movie Big, Tom Hanks plays a twelve-year-old who is magically transformed into an adult body. In the movie, he sleeps with Elizabeth Perkins (who doesn't know he's mentally a kid). The scene is even played for laughs: he puts his hand on her breast, then it cuts to the next morning, when he's striding down the street with a huge grin on his face and a spring in his step.

That scene always bothered me. Is a kid having sex suddenly acceptable because he's in an adult body? Sure, you can't really blame Elizabeth Perkins, because she had no way of knowing he was a kid, but...should it really be a comic scene like that? If she had sex with him again after he turned back into a kid, I think everybody would agree it's tremendously wrong...so why does the story get away with portraying it as lighthearted fun the first time?

Jeremy
 
Last edited:
even if the pictures were faked or the child was a robot, the intent is still there. The pictures and the robot are proxies, and the acts are carried out with the proxies. So I guess you have to decide wether Child molestation by proxie is a crime.
 
uruk said:
even if the pictures were faked or the child was a robot, the intent is still there.
Click to expand...

I don't think "intent" is the right word. "Desire," sure, but maybe the reason they're using the robot is specifically because they don't intend to hurt real children. "Pedophile" is such a loaded word in our society that many people don't realize there are lots of them who know that it's wrong and would never act on their impulses in real life. I have a lot of sympathy for them, actually: they're essentially victims of a psychological disorder who, despite keeping it under control, still have to deal with the scorn heaped on them by everybody else.

So the question becomes, is a desire to have sex with children a crime if it's never acted upon? I vote no; saying otherwise opens up way too many scary doors.

Jeremy
 
An interesting note is that a few centuries ago, sex with a ten year old girl was considered "consumating your marrige". Sex with a minor boy was considered part of military training (see Spartans).
 
uruk said:
even if the pictures were faked or the child was a robot, the intent is still there. The pictures and the robot are proxies, and the acts are carried out with the proxies. So I guess you have to decide wether Child molestation by proxie is a crime.
Click to expand...



This raises a whole box full of bigger questions (what is crime, why are certain victimless acts are legal, while others are not; and many others).

Certain victimless self damaging acts are illegal (like smoking pot) while others are legal (smoking cigarettes). Obviously there is no overall principle dictating what is legal and what is not. It appears that what ever is currently in fashion with the majority of the population dictates what is legal/illegal-right/wrong. So smoke 'em if you got ‘em, but don't draw pictures of naked kids (because we all know how dangerous paint on paper in certain patterns can be)!

LLH
 
Where does it stop then. Should you go to jail for buying your girlfriend a cheerleader outfit and reliving your middle school campionship game? What about the adult baby crowd, if they take off the getup right before sex does that make it ok if not what is the waiting period?

Like any laws it will be used to the extreme despite what they say, just like zero tolerance and 3 strikes. I dont want to pay 30k a year to keep some guy in jail because he has a Pokemon fetish.

The law will be used to punish gay heathens while the "artists" and "child modeling sites" will continue to get off scott free.
 
Not just robots in the future, but back to pictures/film today. With the computing technology available to the average computer user today, you can probably construct a relatively lifelike CGI-3d image of a nude child--right to your specifications. And with the quickly moving evolution and growth of personal computing technology, how many years before you can 'make' a picture (or movie) in CGI that is lifelike and exactly what you want--no matter how perverted that want is?

Probably not that far off, given the massive changes in image-computing and the ever-growing size of the average users' computer power.

For good or for ill, present dependeth knoweth not. But I think we're going to find out...:confused:
 
A pervert at heart is a pervert at heart ... and no doubt the potential opportunist.
 
Do we arrest potentials? Jail them? Andrea Dworkin claims that all men are potential rapists--what then to do?
 
If we arrested every 'potential' crime, people could be arrested as soon as they drank one alcoholic drink. Might drive drunk, you know.
 
Aren't violent video games just proxies for murder? Shouldn't we lock up anyone who shoots someone in a video game, by that logic? (note: I've worked in the video game industry for six years.)

While I may find the notion revolting, I don't think it should be illegal. There are lots of things that people do behind closed doors that I'd rather not see, but as long as they're not hurting another person, or somehow manipulating a non-consenting adult, I really don't care what people do, or what gets them off. I don't think something should be illegal until it harms another person, or presents a clear and present danger to harm another person.
 
Mercutio said:
Do we arrest potentials? Jail them? Andrea Dworkin claims that all men are potential rapists--what then to do?
Click to expand...


Well, I was opposed to jailing Ms. Dworkin for that opinion at the time, and I think I still hold to that opinion. I am willing to hear counter-arguments, however.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
Well, I was opposed to jailing Ms. Dworkin for that opinion at the time, and I think I still hold to that opinion. I am willing to hear counter-arguments, however.
Click to expand...

I am opposed to jailing Ms. Dworkin for her comments, but a good thump on the head for giving feminism a bad name would be sweeeeeet.
 
I'm not talking about prohibition. I am talking about potential. If sex with a child robot is arrestable because of the potential for real child abuse, then having a drink should be arrestable because of the potential for drunk driving.
 
StaticEngine said:
Aren't violent video games just proxies for murder? Shouldn't we lock up anyone who shoots someone in a video game, by that logic? (note: I've worked in the video game industry for six years.)
Click to expand...
If one becomes obsorbed in them, and has no other outlet for expression, then potentially, yes.
 
Aren't violent video games just proxies for murder? Shouldn't we lock up anyone who shoots someone in a video game, by that logic? (note: I've worked in the video game industry for six years.)
Click to expand...
Do you get enjoyment out of the gameplay or the act killing the human shaped sprite? Personally my favorite games are the pov shoot'em ups. I really like blasting away things. But the difference is that you know the action is not real. When you are playing the game, you are not fantasizing about actually killing people (i.e. trying to created in your mind the feelings and sensations of actually killing a person) your just blasting away at a human shaped sprite. And givin a gun and a real person chances are you will not want to kill that person. When a pedo is engaging in activities with pictures of actual children or having sex with a child shaped robot, the intentions are different. There is the desire to want the proxies to be real. And given the oppurtunity, the pedo will probably carry out those action on an actual child.
Again, the question is should the pedophile actions with the proxies be considered illeagal? Personaly, I don't know. Certainly possesing child pornography is illegal. Some may argue that allowing pedophiles these proxies may give them a area to vent those tendencies without hurting a real child. But it would also reinforce that behaviour and what happens when the pedophile gets tired of the proxy and desires the "real" thing?
 
Lisa Simpson said:
I'm not talking about prohibition. I am talking about potential. If sex with a child robot is arrestable because of the potential for real child abuse, then having a drink should be arrestable because of the potential for drunk driving.
Click to expand...
Well, at the very least, I don't think this type of behavior should be encouraged. And perhaps just a matter of confiscating the materials if the person's behavior becomes disturbing enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom