1) I'm saying that harm isn't the objective.
2) Depending on what they do there might be no physical harm.
-
Features
Child sized sex robots?
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
1) I'm saying that harm isn't the objective.
2) Depending on what they do there might be no physical harm.
Reality check:
1) Most pedophiles seduce, not rape.
2) That 40 second figure is garbage by those who are trying to inflate the problem. Yes, children disappear but the vast majority do so voluntarily--runaways, not abductions.
3) Even abductions aren't usually about sex. Most kidnappings are custodial issues, not perverts.
4) The primary sexual threat to children is from people they know, not from strangers.
1. Oh, so seducing children is more noble than outright raping them? In the long run, that may do even more damage. Psychically.
2. Yes the forty seconds doesn't represent pedophiles abducting children. Only about 20%? I'll give you 15%. At any rate, the figures on that are shady. You're aware of how many homeless children there are in the world right now. And parents who would rather see their child sold for rape, than starved to death? Pedophilia is rampant. Downplaying it makes it even worse. Shouldn't do that.
3. No, they aren't usually about sex. You're right.
4. The primary threats could use a doll to screw. And there you go downplaying again.
Reality checked, everything looks Okay on my end. And I won't downplay things like this. How about your end?
On a lighter note there is sublimation - and the dolls would probably cut down on kid snatching across the world but I doubt it would cut down on incest, which counts for half of this kind of behavior wouldn't you say
Straight people have dildos. So do homosexuals. For some depraved people, a dildo just isn't enough. Why not give some sex dolls to women and men of unnatural sexual orientation? Some people would see giving a child sex doll to a pervert as allowing them free practice. Like somehow that would make them bold enough to snatch a living kid or take advantage of someone close. No. Don't think so.
Child sex dolls already exist. They aren't being sold on Ebay so nobody seems to mind. Makeshift child sex dolls have existed for hundreds of years. I would say thousands or even millions but I don't know how they felt about child sex back then. Nobody ever seemed to care because you don't see them in Sears Roebuck magazines, and I doubt the makeshifts are kept in plain sight next to the Refrigerator and litter box. A regular life-sized doll and a drill has probably served well for pedophiles (and society directly) for many years.
How about this... draw up a list of pedophilic internet footprints and start mailing out child sex dolls by the millions. Building these little critters sounds like a great American job, to be done proudly and for fair wage. America first of course. So crazy it just might work. Discretely send them something that would save hundreds of billions in friggin cash for the Gov - and just as many innocent minds, bodies and lives across the land.
The doll initiative would Save a lot of money in lake-dragging, dog searches, manhunts, federal computer seizing, trial costs, funerals, incarceration, surveillance, lifetimes of ineffective victim therapy and all other things pedophilia brings about.
Maybe all these crazy pedophiles need is a simple doll to hug. Why are the simplest things sometimes the most complicated? How much does it cost to manufacture a satisfying doll? More than a child's innocence and possibly life? Oh, and don't forget their livelihood. Sexual violence survivors experience reduced income in adulthood as a result of victimization in adolescence, with a lifetime income loss estimated at $242,000 (according the National Alliance To End Sexual Violence). Maybe they can get an extra job manufacturing child sex dolls if things get tight.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Wouldn't this be better compared to porn?
A very advanced sex robot would just be very interactive pornography.
Photo-based child porn is illegal because you have to put kids into sexual situations for the pictures.
But the laws protecting kids are not really on-point protecting computer images because no actual child is harmed. So we're back to asking if porn satisfies people's sexual drives or if it works more as a gateway drug.
One of my roommates was absolutely convinced that my reading Playboy meant i would soon move on to Hustler, then fetish, then raping women, then raping children, then raping dogs and finally voting Democrat. My personal experience does not match his convictions. Playboy and Democrat, yes, and a narrow field of kink, but no rapes, no Penthouse, nothing harder...
And most of the studies i've seen that prove porn causes sexual addiction, that was their starting point, and, big surprise, that's what they found when they looked.
Grown ups having sex with children is rape. Seduced or not.
Nobody said it wasn't. I was pointing out to Loren that seducing children, teaching them to masturbate and showing them any form of passion destroys them psychically. Raping and molesting them without those things causes less harm. Both are terrible but Loren was under the impression that "most pedophiles seduce, not rape", which isn't true to begin with. And she rebutted "reality check", claiming that I was inflating the problem. Yes, I'm "inflating" the problem of CHILD RAPE, Loren. Because it is oh so trivial. Yeah.
The point about seduction was the claim that it was violent. Rape is violent, seduction is not.
Yeah, they're shady--the crusaders inflate them like hell. I do not know the numbers and it's too much hassle to search right now but even your 15% is way above reality.
Men don't have much use for a dildo. And note that there are sex dolls out there now, all the way from crude blow-up gadgets to multi-thousand dollar things that get into uncanny valley territory (but have no mobility.)
I think it would take more realistic dolls than present.
- - - Updated - - -
I was specifically referring to a claim of "violent".
Violence isn't just physical. I'd say that seducing a child is one the most violent and despicable things a person can do. Technically you'd be right if emotions didn't exist, but they do - so you're not right. But that is Okay. Only unrespectable thing about being wrong is not admitting it when you realize you are wrong, and then digging yourself deeper into utterly painful wrongness. "Painful" being figurative in this case, like "violence".
Crusaders? Do you really need to call people who care about children crusaders?
Would you agree that even 1% is too high? If it is "too much hassle" to search, I totally understand. I just go on numbers from real life. Almost very woman I've ever been with was molested as a child. From where I sit, the numbers look staggering. Half of the men I know can say the same thing. And another 25% just can't say it because they can't afford therapy. It would be easier to tally up the number of people who HAVENT been sexually abused. This would baffle you if you knew the people I know, and came from where I do. You'd understand how seduction can be violent if you saw some of these people decades after uncle Rex and Jim the friendly Priest are done with them. Somehow the diddle bus passed me by in my lucky childhood and I am a minority where I come from. MAJOR minority.
Undermining "crusaders" with numbers you're not even willing to fetch, just because you need to be right... that isn't downplaying the issue. That is just evil. Unwittingly of course. I know you're not evil. You're just wrong. No worries. This Is starting to make me sick, by the way. Child sex dolls don't make me ill but the attitudes of people I look to for rationality can sometimes dampen my spirit. Bout done talkin about it, so you can go ahead with this.
Actually dildos are instrumental in teaching children to masturbate. And I'd say normal, non-pedophile men do need dildos more than women. Sexually inadequate men have a lot of use for dildos.
Yes I have noted that already. I even put it in my post. Guess you missed that part. Unfortunately we don't disagree.
The idea, Loren, is to get some decent dolls in the hands of pedophiles. And soon. I mean... if actually cutting down on child abuse is the goal. Or is the goal being right? Is this about being right, or having a pragmatical conversation (not debate) about helping innocent kids avoid being raped (or even worse) seduced? Psychologically marred for life - in the case of seduction.
Yeah, true that. Like I said, artificial tear ducts and resistance to physical tearing. Heating elements lined into the artificial bones. Devices that have longevity. Self-irrigating. Low power consumption. The dolls don't need a heart but magnanimous manufacturers do need to have their own hearts in the right place. They need to give the dolls away for free to the millions of pedophiles out there biting their nails and staring out the window at the neighbor's kids right now.
ronburgundy
Contributor
It's quite plausible that actually physically engaging in sex with child replica would have qualitatively different psychological and behavioral effects than merely viewing images of a child engaged in sexual situations. Actual pedophilia entails sexual thoughts about kids put into physical action. Actual sexual actions with a child replica is far closer to that than the mere thoughts of sex absent the actual action that is entailed in viewing images, even if the images are of real sex with real kids.
Also, there is a growing body of research referred to as "embodied cognition" suggesting that physical motor actions shape our concepts and feelings about things, people, ideas, etc.. There are reasons to think that sex with child robots would make actual pedophilia more likely moreso than merely viewing images would.
As for the impact of porn as a gateway, one does have to wonder whether the ever increasing extremity of the violence in porn and the every growing prevalence of the more aggressive forms of porn is not a product of a kind of desensitization effect. Survey show that there has been a large increase in the % of men "requesting" anal from their female partners over the last couple decades. That is quite plausibly an effect of porn. After all, for men who watch porn regularly, probably 99% of the "information" they have about sex and what women like is coming from porn rather than the far fewer actual women they have sex with. Odds are that men's belief that most woman would enjoy anal, and their beliefs about women liking physical aggression (slapping, choking) and rape simulations have increased due to porn. It would be surprising if that wasn't the case.
It seems rather clear that people's conceptions of and assumptions about others, and their feelings about things are generally impacted by their experiences, including exposure to media, both non-representative non-fiction (e.g., the news) and outright fiction.
There is research showing that people incorporated information and events from sources they know at the time are purely fictional into their beliefs and memories about reality and actual events. Everything we know about the error-ridden reconstructive nature of human memory predicts that would happen, and nothing in neuroscience suggests that the brain processes stimuli in a fundamentally different way depending on whether its info about real or fictional events.
The general cultural norms against sex with kids are too great for porn or sex with robot children to make the difference in most people. However, what about people that are already disposed to such a desire and are on the cusp of talking themselves into or out of actually trying to pursue such an act vs. seek psychological help. It seems quite plausible and consistent with some rather basic realities of human psychology that viewing children having sex with adults and seeming to like it could allow them to convince themselves that some kids would like it and thus it okay. That seems even more likely if they are physically simulating and "practicing" seducing and having sex with kids via such robots. OTOH, the theory that is could be a non-harmful "outlet" for such desires has some merit too.
I have a high bar for laws against any person act that has no direct victims. So, I'm not ready to take a position of the issue of legality of such things (besides the illegality of porn involving real kids which has direct victims). However, it doesn't seem reasonable to discount the very plausible if not likely causal impact that both porn and such sexual simulations could have, especially on a minority subset of people who already possess other factors that put them on the cusp of the real harmful actions in question. It's a complex empirical question, but reactions that discount any impact based on notions that its "fiction" and thus not relevant to the real world are countered by tons of evidence that "fiction" has plenty of influence on human thought and action in the real world.
Also, there is a growing body of research referred to as "embodied cognition" suggesting that physical motor actions shape our concepts and feelings about things, people, ideas, etc.. There are reasons to think that sex with child robots would make actual pedophilia more likely moreso than merely viewing images would.
As for the impact of porn as a gateway, one does have to wonder whether the ever increasing extremity of the violence in porn and the every growing prevalence of the more aggressive forms of porn is not a product of a kind of desensitization effect. Survey show that there has been a large increase in the % of men "requesting" anal from their female partners over the last couple decades. That is quite plausibly an effect of porn. After all, for men who watch porn regularly, probably 99% of the "information" they have about sex and what women like is coming from porn rather than the far fewer actual women they have sex with. Odds are that men's belief that most woman would enjoy anal, and their beliefs about women liking physical aggression (slapping, choking) and rape simulations have increased due to porn. It would be surprising if that wasn't the case.
It seems rather clear that people's conceptions of and assumptions about others, and their feelings about things are generally impacted by their experiences, including exposure to media, both non-representative non-fiction (e.g., the news) and outright fiction.
There is research showing that people incorporated information and events from sources they know at the time are purely fictional into their beliefs and memories about reality and actual events. Everything we know about the error-ridden reconstructive nature of human memory predicts that would happen, and nothing in neuroscience suggests that the brain processes stimuli in a fundamentally different way depending on whether its info about real or fictional events.
The general cultural norms against sex with kids are too great for porn or sex with robot children to make the difference in most people. However, what about people that are already disposed to such a desire and are on the cusp of talking themselves into or out of actually trying to pursue such an act vs. seek psychological help. It seems quite plausible and consistent with some rather basic realities of human psychology that viewing children having sex with adults and seeming to like it could allow them to convince themselves that some kids would like it and thus it okay. That seems even more likely if they are physically simulating and "practicing" seducing and having sex with kids via such robots. OTOH, the theory that is could be a non-harmful "outlet" for such desires has some merit too.
I have a high bar for laws against any person act that has no direct victims. So, I'm not ready to take a position of the issue of legality of such things (besides the illegality of porn involving real kids which has direct victims). However, it doesn't seem reasonable to discount the very plausible if not likely causal impact that both porn and such sexual simulations could have, especially on a minority subset of people who already possess other factors that put them on the cusp of the real harmful actions in question. It's a complex empirical question, but reactions that discount any impact based on notions that its "fiction" and thus not relevant to the real world are countered by tons of evidence that "fiction" has plenty of influence on human thought and action in the real world.
Malintent
Veteran Member
I know, right... in 1964 1 MB of memory took a forklift to load into the warehouse that was needed to hold the computer that my desk calculator is 100,000 times more powerful than... that computer cost millions of dollars. You should just see the crazy insurance policy I have out on my desk calculator... must be worth BILLIONS by this logic.
I will agree with despicable but violent implies an attack--something that doesn't exist in a seduction.
I'm talking about the people who try to inflate the size of the problem--for example, pretending runaways are sex abductions. Or pretending that women who voluntarily go to conventions or battle group port calls are trafficked.
Note that I said "right now"--a temporary issue that I do not wish to identify at this time.
And showing that they were harmed isn't showing that there was violence. Just because something is bad doesn't mean you can apply every bad adjective to it!
Anyway, after wading through a lot of crusader garbage, I find:
http://www.pollyklaas.org/about/national-child-kidnapping.html
Only about 100/year stranger abductions not part of some other crime.
Once again, you've been taken in by the crusader garbage. A pedophile would not want to teach a child to masturbate with a dildo. If they're going for pleasure they want to be the source of the pleasure! Toys would undermine this, not help!
You still assume that pedophiles want to harm the children. A desire to harm is the realm of the sadist, not the pedophile.
Just because harm is inflicted doesn't mean they desire to harm, only that the harm is a byproduct of what they want to do.
While I do agree there is a problem with people getting wrong attitudes towards sex due to porn but the increasing violence pretty much crusader garbage. Most porn is non-violent, period.
As the market expands it will fill niches better so the amount of violent porn has gone up from the era where it was pretty much one-size-fits-all, as well as the issue of obscenity prosecution making non-vanilla porn a risk business. This doesn't mean the desire for such porn as gone up, though.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
Not a chance. Once robots start getting mass produced, they'll be cheap. AI is only expensive to produce once. But once you've made it work there's zero cost in copying it. The expensive bit will be the silicone rubber itself. Making silicone rubber is extremely energy intensive. That's a physical obstacle that we can't really improve cost-wise. But people are already buying silicone full sized dolls. They are today mass produced and land on about $500. They already have an internal skeleton. A robot would have that. Add to that engines and actuators and stuff, not expensive components as such. It's the development of making it works that costs. So the materials are not likely to be all that more expensive than today.
So that's likely what they'll cost, ca $500.
LordKiran
Veteran Member
Once you start adding moving parts and computer tech, the hard part is keeping it from overheating/well lubricated. Even if you could make it work, you'd need to pay a mint in maintenance costs.
DrZoidberg
Contributor
I don't think anybody will ever make a sex robot that walks around on two legs. What would be the point of that? A four "legged" robot is a hell of a lot easier to make, since you barely have to care about balance. It doesn't really have to be all that fast either.
There's battery operated vs corded. If you go corded you can have light weight "muscles". When we're talking the "brain". It does not have to be particularly advanced. It is a sex robot, and not a conversation-bot.
The technology for this already exists, and has for 15 years now. What prevents it is the market for it. The first models will be expensive. Especially expensive to make them. Real Doll tried to make a robot that gyrates it's pelvis and also speaks. Nobody wanted them. People seem happy about the dead silent type dolls.
BTW. there exists repair kits for Real Dolls today. They're plug-and-play devices that are easy to fix yourself. I doubt there will be any different for sex bots.
The reason I know all this is because my brother used to be a robot scientist. This is a topic that frequently comes up. But I'm sure it's just a matter of time before these will be commonplace. I predict every city will have a sex robot brothel. I don't think it'll be that long now.
Sure of that? My impression is you lost a zero.
And while the electronics of such a robot will be of minimal cost any mobility it has will still cost. I would be surprised if it didn't cost thousands of dollars for the mechanical parts.
Malintent
Veteran Member
If child robots are to be prohibited (or taboo), what about "Travel Sized" ones that can fit into a suitcase, but still are of the human form?
My wife has a really cute tee-shirt... it says, "I'm not small... I'm Fun Size!"
My wife has a really cute tee-shirt... it says, "I'm not small... I'm Fun Size!"
DrZoidberg
Contributor
DrZoidberg
Contributor
A fun mental exercise
Here's instructions on how to build your own robotic arm. The components for this will land on $20 perhaps.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Arduino-Robotic-Arm-3D-Printed-With-Grab/
A human body is heavy. Heavy as fuck. Because it's a bag of fat and water. So we don't have to care about making the components lightweight. We don't need to worry about heat-dissipation because we want it warm. We just need to have many small, rather than big servos and place them in places that gives the right effect. The silicone will help to diffuse the heat evenly. No, it won't be perfect. Cold hands and such. But it doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be good enough. Most men are cheerfully fucking less than perfect women all the time. I wouldn't worry about it.
Electric motors are rapidly becoming smaller and lightweight. Electric motors are silent. Mechanical servos will have a whine to them. Not that sexy. Loud music in the background?
The really hard part will be to make it move smoothly, ie not robotic. In the human body we solve this by having an opposite muscle fire whenever you engage a muscle. We can do this in a robot as well. We typically don't in robotics, because it's a colossal waste of energy. But we can still do it. Wasting energy will not be a problem for us, because we want it warm. Also... assuming it's corded.
The bigger problem will be maintenance. The human body is the result of evolution. That means that we have 600 muscles. Most tiny. This is not practical in a robot. It's not practical in a human either. Not to build it and certainly not to maintain. The trick is to get that number as low as possible. A human arm has 23 muscles. The Arduino grabbing arm (which as the same function) has cut that down to 4 servos. If we use that as a template, the robot could be cut down to 100 small servos. Still a lot. But not impossible to maintain. A plastic skeleton, wires to the servos, and metal brackets for the servos. With 3d printing technology it could even be dirt cheap to maintain, and anybody could do it themselves.
The silicone will need to be replaced now and again. The silicone body doesn't/and shouldn't come in a single piece. Real dolls come with various parts replaceable. Not a problem. Silicone is really high tech industrial stuff. Can't be 3d printed (with current technology). But can be bought in pieces and switched out.
A cheap Raspberry Pi computer could run all this. This is not fancy shit. The muscles aren't. AI built to be a convincing conversationalist is cutting edge technology right now and even he best systems aren't great, and require serious computer power. A robot that can repeatedly say "fuck me harder" and "boy do you have a big penis" is not hard to build and can be run on the same Raspberry Pi computer.
Malintent
Veteran Member
$127 per hour for a doll???? That is $27 more than for a willing human being in most places, as far as I understand. You can own a RealDoll for less than $5,000.