Thought police?

[Aegon]

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 think the slippery slope argument here would be more along the lines of: they get a taste of the simulation, now they're more inclined to desire the real thing and act on it.

[henryp]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Taboo breeds perversion. Someone who gets their jollies off on kiddie dolls is more likely to try it with a real boy than someone who doesn't..but between two people who -want- a real boy....the one with the non real boy outlet is the less likely perp of a crime involving real boys.

We seem to understand this, instinctually even, with any other thing. We tell people to find an outlet for their stress and frustration precisely so the focus of that stress and frustration is never actualized in it's native form. We often fail to realize that our own destructive impulses outlets are already normalized, particularly when we climb up on the high horse about other peoples outlets and impulses.

"Barely legal" genre porn?
Hunting?
Boxing and Bloodsport?
Slasher/Revenge/Crime/War Flicks?

[RoadRunner79]

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 would agree with this very much.   I've expressed my concerns with placing harm as a basis before, so I won't get into the issue with that.  To me, saying that you might as well let them do what makes them happy in this case (as long as it is not harming anyone) could be similar to saying that it is only illegal to make new child porn, and that existing material isn't harming anyone more, so they may as well have that.  

It's sad, but I think that the "common sense" way of thinking, is too often becoming less common.

[The Grand Nudger]

Common sense tells us that if existing child pron somehow prevented future child pron or people screwing kids...the decision is a no-brainer.  Let em have the dusty 8mm and save the kids.

Your -only- reservation with harm as a basis is that you think it leaves out your silly god beliefs, rr, lol..even though those beliefs are ultimately based on purported harm themselves.  Temet Nosce..how very appropriate for this thread, lol.

[Aegon]

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.

It goes back to the basic argument of: this is something bad or illegal that people will do no matter what we do, so we should provide a safe alternative to help prevent it. That logic extends to a lot of things, including this. "It," in this scenario, refers to the distribution of child **** as well as a pedophile actually physically acting upon those desires with an actual human. In theory, a pedophile could satisfy his desires in a private and safe manner, instead of destroying a child's life. Again, somebody who is already sexually attracted to children is not going to stop feeling that just because we yell "BAD!" Society finding them repulsive has yet to stop them from acting on their desires thus far, and the argument that you would create more pedophiles by manufacturing these sorts of things doesn't make very much sense to me.

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

I agree with you.

The case of a real child's face is definitely harmful.

What I'm wondering is whether 'child sex bots' would encourage or discourage the likelihood of such people wanting to move onto real children... or whether it would have no effect on it whatsoever. Would it satisfy their urges so much that they would never harm a child when without those bots they would? Or would it keep them occupied for a while until they got bored and moved onto real children, after it actually fueling rather than satisfying their desires? Or would it have absolutely no effect because child molestation and pedophilia are completely unrelated?

---

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 think the slippery slope argument here would be more along the lines of: they get a taste of the simulation, now they're more inclined to desire the real thing and act on it.

Yeah this would be my biggest concern as well.

[Shell B]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet another way that taboo breeds perversion.  If a person has a reason to conceal their impulses or their condition they will..and because of this they will not receive help or treatment.  It even applies to the loved ones of people who need help.  Most people know when their cousin is fuckin crazy...when their cousin needs help..but they also understand the consequences of throwing their cousin under the bus.

[Shell B]

Yet another way that taboo breeds perversion.  If a person has a reason to conceal their impulses or their condition they will..and because of this they will not receive help or treatment.  It even applies to the loved ones of people who need help.  Most people know when their cousin is fuckin crazy...when their cousin needs help..but they also understand the consequences of throwing their cousin under the bus.

Yeah, unfortunately, there will always be those who will hide specifically because they don't intend to get help.

I don't give a fuck what cousin it is, if I find out one of them is touching kids, I'll throw them right under the bus. No questions.