Thought police?

[ignoramus]

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?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My own personal touchstone is that if no one is harmed, it can't be immoral. What consenting adults do in private is no one else's business. 

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some people will argue the slippery slope. Not me, I'm not psychic.

[ignoramus]

Hey Zilla, I can just hear an Islamic Imam warning that:

IF YOU LEGALISE CHILD SEXBOTS, ONE DAY THEY WILL WANT TO MARRY THEM!

hehe

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hey Zilla, I can just hear an Islamic Imam warning that:

IF YOU LEGALISE CHILD SEXBOTS, ONE DAY THEY WILL WANT TO MARRY THEM!

hehe

I knew a guy back in grade school that masturbated to pictures of cows, rear-end shots. I'm pretty sure he never molested an actual cow. (But the odds of him being with a human being were equally long.)

[brewer]

Incels of the world, REJOICE!

[Crossless2.0]

Incels of the world, REJOICE!

You have to know there will be at least one who won't be able to make it, no matter what. 

That's the guy who will shoot up the sexbot factory.

[The Valkyrie]

Incels of the world, REJOICE!

Nah.

Even the sex dolls will reject them and they'll whine that it's all the fault of "Chad" and "Stacey" sex dolls.

[Shell B]

So, in the case of the superimposing of a child's face over an adult pron star, I don't think that's victimless. If by some freak accident that kid some day sees that, it's fucked up. Using real people's faces, especially those who didn't consent, is an issue. Fake shit, as long as it's not disseminated, is no problem for me. It would seriously fuck with my head to see it or hear about it. I'd probably react very emotionally in the case of a realistic bot, but I don't think it harms anyone. Now, there may be such a thing as harming a robot on a human level in the future. I don't know. If there is, I'll reassess.

[robvalue]

My own personal touchstone is that if no one is harmed, it can't be immoral. What consenting adults do in private is no one else's business. 

Boru

Same here.

I think the idea of denying people outlets which hurt nobody is stupid and counterproductive.