(April 5, 2018 at 4:21 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 2:50 pm)wallym Wrote: I think it's a little more complicated than someone being hurt by the individual act.  I think the goal is to have the chasm you'd have to cross to go from not having sex with children to having sex with children to be as vast as possible, and for the feedback at every point to be "BAD!"  

I guess what it boils down to, is do you think someone who fucks robots kids, and watches cgi kid porn is going to be more likely to go from that to real kid sex, than someone who's told no all the way.  Or if you think someone who lives in a society that doesn't have as strong a taboo with child sex is going to be more likely to participate in child sex.

Personally, I think it's in our best interest to avoid an environment that says it's okay to go up to the line on that front.  It's definitely thought policing, but sometimes that's just the common sense approach.

I can understand that logic. The problem is that we have no reason, thus far, to think that it would happen that way. That's the slippery slope when it comes to this particular debate. I'm not sure it's common sense, because I'm not sure it's a reasonable outcome. It could happen that having an outlet like that is enough to stop people from hurting children. That said, I would ideally like to see it treated like a mental illness so people can come out and say they have those urges and professionals who are qualified to help people not act on impulses can help them. Whether it's an illness or not is irrelevant to the fact that treatment can be beneficial.

Practically speaking, if those things aren't allowed, the point the person meets resistance will be earlier.  If you can't look at stuff or fuck child replicas, when someone does one of those things, you can nab them and do something about it before they get to a real kid.  If they can legally look at cgi kiddie porn and have kid robot sex, and there's nothing saying "That's wrong", all that's left is trying to catch them just before they molest an actual kid.  

But my original point, I think society can dictate societal norms by how it responds to various acts.  More or less moral advertising.  The same tricks that can get people to think Beyonce is the queen of the world can be used to dissuade people from sexing up kids.  

I think it's understated.  I remember back in the day, the standard of beauty was tall thin women.  And then MtV just said "Here's Jennifer Lopez.  You all like big asses now."  And people did.  It was crazy.  They just flipped a switch on beauty standards.  And they do stuff like that all the time.  I prefer they use those powers as much as possible to be anti-child sex.  Although, I'd say Hollywood/commerce sends some pretty mixed messages.  Which makes it even more important that the stigma remains attached to all of that behavior wherever it can be.

---

(April 5, 2018 at 5:48 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 5:38 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: This was what I was thinking.

Ready Pervert One?

I got it.

(April 5, 2018 at 5:53 pm)wallym Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 5:48 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Ready Pervert One?

I got it.

I'm guessing me and Deidre are missing a reference required to get the joke lol.

(April 5, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 5:53 pm)wallym Wrote: I got it.

I'm guessing me and Deidre are missing a reference required to get the joke lol.

Movie/Sci-fi book, Ready Player One.  It's about a Virtual reality world, mostly.

(April 5, 2018 at 6:08 pm)wallym Wrote:

(April 5, 2018 at 5:57 pm)Hammy Wrote: I'm guessing me and Deidre are missing a reference required to get the joke lol.

Movie/Sci-fi book, Ready Player One.  It's about a Virtual reality world, mostly.

Bingo. V/R world that seems a bit too squeaky clean from the previews. Anything that can be perverted to make a buck will be. (And no, not 100% of anything, but little escapes the eye of the Fagins of the world.)

I still don't get it.

(April 5, 2018 at 6:16 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: I still don't get it.

The players in "Ready Player One" engaged in social events, sporting events, thrill rides, things like that. "Ready Pervert One" players would be engaged in less wholesome activities. Think of the most realistic pornography possible, totally amenable to user's desires.

---

The fun part of the RPrv1 scenario would come if someone recorded a person's fantasies without their knowledge or permission. Blackmail would be a fun new game for some folks.

I'm still in 2 minds ...

Kids play very violent shootem ups.
The parents are happy because they're off the street and have done their homework first. win win.
These kids grow up normal. They're not playing violent video games because they really want to kill people irl.
It's just entertainment. If you don't think it is, maybe you're the odd one out here?
It's everywhere. TV, movies, video games, etc. Society loves it!

The dude with the sicko sexual fetish?
He's doing this in the privacy of his home BECAUSE he knows it's wrong to do this irl. Which means he HAS morals.
He's just plagued with the human condition and he's well aware of it. He's doing his best to be a good citizen.

(April 5, 2018 at 5:31 am)ignoramus Wrote: Guys, been watching stuff on youtube...
I'm in 2 minds here.

OK, sexbots are getting pretty sophisticated. No probs, whatever gets your rocks off.   *shrugs*
Do you guys all agree that as long as it's not a real "thing", and you're not hurting anyone/anything, what you do in your own privacy is OK?

I agree. This, of course is different to viewing eg: child pr0n on the net, as you are inadvertently encouraging such stuff which is illegal AND immoral. So far so good.

OK, this is where you need to tell me if you find the following is legal and moral, in your opinion.

A guys makes and views his own video photoshops and gets off on it. (eg: superimposes a child's face on an adult porn star)
OK, he's got a festish, it's a dirty fantasy of his. Are we going to judge him like the good little thought police that we are?
Another guy orders a child sexbot from a Chinese black market importer. Same deal.
Some other guy had a fetish for animal sex. He orders a eg: {insert animal name here}. from sexygoatbotsRus

Are all these people (and in reality some are female. It's not just men who have sexual fetishes), who do all this in the privacy of their homes guilty of anything?
I suppose my question is: Is it immoral to think of something immoral? And why?

Is there an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage to getting your rocks off in private? Why do we frown down at it?

I’d say it would be ok if it’s not a picture of a real child.

@Gawdzilla Sama - I don't understand why you quoted me with this? Makes no sense, when I was just agreeing with Aegon's post.

(April 5, 2018 at 6:44 pm)ignoramus Wrote: I'm still in 2 minds ...

Kids play very violent shootem ups.
The parents are happy because they're off the street and have done their homework first. win win.
These kids grow up normal. They're not playing violent video games because they really want to kill people irl.
It's just entertainment. If you don't think it is, maybe you're the odd one out here?
It's everywhere. TV, movies, video games, etc. Society loves it!

The dude with the sicko sexual fetish?
He's doing this in the privacy of his home BECAUSE he knows it's wrong to do this irl. Which means he HAS morals.
He's just plagued with the human condition and he's well aware of it. He's doing his best to be a good citizen.

One type, you've got it right, and they should have their innocent fun. Another type, it's just practice, getting ready for the real thing. One of the flags for serial killers is a fondness for killing small animals. Things progress.

---

(April 5, 2018 at 6:47 pm)*Deidre* Wrote: @Gawdzilla Sama - I don't understand why you quoted me with this? Makes no sense, when I was just agreeing with Aegon's post.

Nothing intended by it, I just thought you didn't understand the reference I made.