for those interested I noticed a doc on Netflix called Sex Robots but I didn't want to explain to people why that is on my "watched" list
Sex robots
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
It isn't Westworld - but it certainly is the beginning of the road to something like that.
"O brave new world that has such people in it!"
No, I wasn't. It is sad but not surprising. Unless someone has proof there is a direct threat to children, you are prosecuting someone for a thought or sexual fantasy. If I can bind women or (dolls in this case) up and fantasise rape as a closeted fantasy - why would I get involved or remove that fantasy outlet for that sexual craving ?Perhaps you never read about this ongoing trial:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/child-sex-doll-trial-1.3398368
Since 2013, when he was arrested for importing a child sex doll, the trials are still going in Newfoundland. So, if you build your own child sex doll/robot, and the police discovers it somehow (e.g. a friend sees it and tips them off), then you will get in just as much legal trouble, likely ending up in jail just as this guy is going to be.
I'm against C-39 because it interferes with the freedom of adults to choose their own life style. I'm not gay nor do I get the attraction but I believe adults freedom to choose. I don't get the pedo but if you are not affecting the lives of those around you (particularly children), it is your own private business what fantasies you have.
I think their rationale is this: Suppose your fantasy is to have sex with your neighbour who has rejected you numerous times. You build a sexbot that looks exactly like her (just like the guy who built the Scarlett Johansson sexbot). So you reckon, you can leave her alone now because you can just use your clone of her as an outlet for your relief. But then you want more. The silicone does not look realistic enough (does the Scarlett Johansson sexbot look EXACTLY like her?). Let's 3d-print her skin to show all her skin texture and eye detail. Now you are satisfied with her visual realism. Then later still you want more. Let's get her to moan and sound just like her. But later you are still not satisfied because she is not moving and reacting as you would like her to during the sex. But the current technology does enable that. Now you are back to wanting her for real, and now even MORE so than before because you got accumstomed to getting almost the real thing for so long. Now the REAL THING is the ONLY satisfying way to please your super-lifted expectations, and you know what that may amount to.No, I wasn't. It is sad but not surprising. Unless someone has proof there is a direct threat to children, you are prosecuting someone for a thought or sexual fantasy. If I can bind women or (dolls in this case) up and fantasise rape as a closeted fantasy - why would I get involved or remove that fantasy outlet for that sexual craving ?
I'm against C-39 because it interferes with the freedom of adults to choose their own life style. I'm not gay nor do I get the attraction but I believe adults freedom to choose. I don't get the pedo but if you are not affecting the lives of those around you (particularly children), it is your own private business what fantasies you have.
In short, creating your own substitute for the real thing does not prevent the crime, but will eventually instigate it more as it fuels your passion more and more. At least, that's what the laws dictate.
By the way, check out this video that was uploaded only last month:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaGziQF-CL0
But though the video says it will be legal, I think eventually they will pass new laws that make it illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaGziQF-CL0
But though the video says it will be legal, I think eventually they will pass new laws that make it illegal.
I think these will be too expensive to own and maintain so we'll still be booking time with them for half hour sessions like we do with sexworkers today. It will still be seen as disgusting.
Prices will be reasonable though so I'm in favour of this.
Prices will be reasonable though so I'm in favour of this.
The laws frequently reflect antiquated and repressive ideologies ( eg: gay bans, supporting slavery, etc) so if you use that as your guideline, your logic could be seriously flawed. I think testing the validity of a law by using it's existence as proof is more than a little short sighted.In short, creating your own substitute for the real thing does not prevent the crime, but will eventually instigate it more as it fuels your passion more and more. At least, that's what the laws dictate.
Your 'but that is not enough' scenario is some what strange scenario based on delaying an inevitable attack on a neighbour. If I may engage your fantasy - a person buying a robot to create replica of a particular person he is fixated on - already has issues that are radically different than buying a generic doll to have sex. The concept that a doll could create an urge that didn't exist prior to going to the trouble of getting the doll I find a little puzzling.
I'm willing to listen to research as opposed to opinions but I find that banning anything that will channel deviant behaviour to an activity that has zero impact on society is not only short sighted but endangers society rather than protecting it.
As far as replicating a particular person - I see it as a question of copyright infringement and an unfortunate reality of celebrity status.
I didn't read the entire story, but I think his defense worked because the depiction was only cartoonish? Once the depiction is 99.99% as accurate as the real thing, then the law will change and make it illegal, and that is the technology level we are arriving at now. It's kind of like how in video games in the 80's, no laws had any problems with seeing video game characters getting killed (e.g. Mario getting burned alive by a fireball in Donkey Kong) because the death depiction looked very fake. But now showing graphic and bloody murders with realistic 3d graphics in video games is something that laws are seriously against.no, if you build your own sex doll, you will not get in trouble. that's why the law is so illogical. read r v sharpe - i linked it above. the court specifically carves out an exception for your own creations. the court thought it would be too draconian to punish people for drawing out their own thoughts, and created an exception for that in the law. so creating your own sex doll would fall under that exception. but in this case, the guy imported it from an overseas manufacturer. had he created and 3D printed it himself, he would have a pretty good defence.
r v sharpe: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1837/index.do
Unless someone has proof there is a direct threat to children, you are prosecuting someone for a thought or sexual fantasy
Exactly. I have had men want me to dress and act like a little girl and that is fine with me because I see no actual threat to children as it's simply a fantasy. People fantasize about a lot of crazy stuff. Now we're going to have the thought police after us?
As pointed out this is all far from clear cut and is a changing area of the law.
Remember as well that this gets into the area of right to ones image and the balancing involved with that concept. For instance you are walking down the road and I take your photograph: can I use it commercially without your permission (almost everywhere no), what if I only share it with my friends but I know that you are a member of a religious group that strongly disproves of photographs of people.
Remember as well that this gets into the area of right to ones image and the balancing involved with that concept. For instance you are walking down the road and I take your photograph: can I use it commercially without your permission (almost everywhere no), what if I only share it with my friends but I know that you are a member of a religious group that strongly disproves of photographs of people.
To quote an old English expression .. then 'the law is an ass' Whether it is more cartoonish or more realistic - you are entering area as convoluted as defining obscene art - ie: opinion. Basically you are applying illegal because you find it offensive and thus no one is allowed to participate. There are a number of legal activities I don't agree with but I don't seek to impose my will on adults behaviour that offers no risk to society.I didn't read the entire story, but I think his defense worked because the depiction was only cartoonish? Once the depiction is 99.99% as accurate as the real thing, then the law will change and make it illegal.
I am only aware of rating the level of violence but what law are you referring ? Anyways it is not relevant anymore than arbitrarily imposing your sense of taste to clothing choices. If they ban depiction of violence in video games, why not in movies ? Anyways - I don't think it is relevant to the issue of whether we should suppress deviant sexual fantasies.It's kind of like how in video games in the 80's, no laws had any problems with seeing video game characters getting killed (e.g. Mario getting burned alive by a fireball in Donkey Kong) because the death depiction looked very fake. But now showing graphic and bloody murders with realistic 3d graphics in video games is something that laws are seriously against.
The accuracy of the model is all about human rights. Suppose you entered a museum where there was a clay sculpture, but a bit cartoonish, that looked like you. You may think that it resembles you but you won't be really bothered, because it could resemble many other guys too, so you would think it is just a coincidence. Now instead of a sculpture, suppose it was a silicone cast and it resembled you much more. Then you start to feel quite uncomfortable, but because silicone does not resemble human skin perfectly, you still cannot claim that it is you. But you wouldn't be happy about it either. Finally, suppose instead you see a 3d-print of a head that looks exactly like you, showing extreme high resolution and every single detail matched you exactly, including the colours and any imperfections about your face. You think this was made off of some 3d scan of your face that you were not aware of, and now you should feel very violated and be totally outraged how they made a public display of you without your permission. Certainly you cannot think that the last case is perfectly legal? Nevertheless, all three cases are exactly the same scenario, the only difference being the accuracy of the portrayal of you.To quote an old English expression .. then 'the law is an ass' Whether it is more cartoonish or more realistic - you are entering area as convoluted as defining obscene art - ie: opinion. Basically you are applying illegal because you find it offensive and thus no one is allowed to participate. There are a number of legal activities I don't agree with but I don't seek to impose my will on adults behaviour that offers no risk to society.
I'm guessing you are referencing my statement :'As far as replicating a particular person - I see it as a question of copyright infringement and an unfortunate reality of celebrity status.'The accuracy of the model is all about human rights. Suppose you entered a museum where there was a clay sculpture, but a bit cartoonish, that looked like you. You may think that it resembles you but you won't be really bothered, because it could resemble many other guys too, so you would think it is just a coincidence. Now instead of a sculpture, suppose it was a silicone cast and it resembled you much more. Then you start to feel quite uncomfortable, but because silicone does not resemble human skin perfectly, you still cannot claim that it is you. But you wouldn't be happy about it either. Finally, suppose instead you see a 3d-print of a head that looks exactly like you, showing extreme high resolution and every single detail matched you exactly, including the colours and any imperfections about your face. You think this was made off of some 3d scan of your face that you were not aware of, and now you should feel very violated and be totally outraged how they made a public display of you without your permission. Certainly you cannot think that the last case is perfectly legal? Nevertheless, all three cases are exactly the same scenario, the only difference being the accuracy of the portrayal of you.
The reality is I have no idea. In the US - freedom of expression could cover it as it does in flag burning and political cartoons (no guessing on the subject being mocked there) but in Canada - who knows ? Not me anyway. Since many people would argue that most lumps of clay bear some resemblance to me, possibly I'm missing out on a fortune.
Thanks dawnlee !in canada, it's called the tort of the appropriation of personality: http://www.iposgoode.ca/2009/04/a-short-overview-on-the-tort-of-appropriation-of-personality/
