Government: If You Are Having Fun, We Must Step In To Regulate It
Steven Nelson writes in the Wash Ex that there are, heh, "mounting" calls to regulate sex robots:
A short drive north of Toronto, $60 buys a half hour alone with a life-sized doll that's "warm and ready to play." Customers take rented sex robots to a private room in a warehouse, near an emissions testing center, before returning them for cleaning.The owner of KinkySdollS told the Washington Examiner he will open a second location in Houston this month, with a goal of 10 U.S. locations by 2020. How? Because there's no regulation.
...Experts and activists say it's time to consider regulations, however, at a minimum to protect consumer safety and public health.
"I can buy two or three or four of these on the Internet and in Washington, D.C., or New York, or anywhere I want, I can set them up and charge people $100 an hour to use them," said John Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University.
"It might make a very funny skit on 'Saturday Night Live' if one of these go wrong, and control mechanisms break and the thing starts pulsating more than it's supposed to," he said. "But that could create a very real physical hazard."
Oh, please. I have a cheapo Chinese vibrator, and it has yet to turn into a taser.
Oh, and look at the adorable little scolds coming out.
The Campaign Against Sex Robots, led by U.K.-based robotic ethics professor Kathleen Richardson, is sympathetic to an outright ban, seeing an insidious threat to society and unhealthy alternatives to human contact.
Guess what: Some people (men, especially) can't get "human contact" or have had it with all that comes with from women.
Not for you to choose, dear, about whether others are allowed to get it on for pay with Sally Silicone.
via ifeminists
When was the last time anything on SNL was "very funny"? I remember seeing an intro with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler as Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton that I thought was very good, but nothing since then.
I find the whole concept of sex robots to be extremely creepy and unsettling. But things that give me unsettling vibes (no pun intended) are merely a basis for me to avoid something, not to prohibit everyone else from enjoying it.
Patrick at September 18, 2018 3:40 AM
...and I thought the controversy would come with child sex robots.
Jen at September 18, 2018 4:45 AM
36 months of lease down payments are always better than 18 years of child support. Plus it has the added benefit that each year you can trade the older model for the newest one.
Sixclaws at September 18, 2018 6:30 AM
I think the opposition comes from two sources:
1) Women who have been working for a couple generations to put maximum limit on men's sexual choices, and are afraid of this new option.
2) Liberals who will work to create "full recognition" of the rights of robots, to build their voting base.
bkmale at September 18, 2018 7:02 AM
Beta males must be shamed into complete desexualization at all costs.
Snoopy at September 18, 2018 7:49 AM
If they keep incel losers from shooting up random public gatherings, I’m all for ‘em. Personally, though, I’d never bang a dude who owned a sexbot or visited sexbot brothels.
ahw at September 18, 2018 8:45 AM
I agree.
Maybe we could flog them, throw them off rooftops, or strangle them from construction cranes?
Iran's policy toward gays is something we should look into for dealing with incels and bot-plookers ...
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 18, 2018 10:01 AM
Article could use photos ...
https://www.kinkysdolls.com/creatures
Interesting and a far cry from the inflatables they used to sell in the back of girlie magazines.
The doll on the right in the second row is a dead ringer for a certain First Daughter (not Chelsea, Amy or Lynda Bird) and the one on the right in the fourth row appears a bit young to be engaging in her line of work.
Whatever woods you up, I suppose; this falls under masturbation rather than prostitution.
Kevin at September 18, 2018 10:18 AM
near an emissions testing center
Snerk!
Steve Daniels at September 18, 2018 10:18 AM
Women who want to ban these masturbation aids? Those who believe they can't compete with the dolls!
By the way, will the ban of realistic dildos be next? Just think about it -- women getting themselves off holding an amputated phallus. Eeew! Creepy, right?
Jay R at September 18, 2018 10:43 AM
"Eeew! Creepy, right?"
No, EMPOWERING!!!
dee nile at September 18, 2018 12:28 PM
Hahahahaha....Doll brothel is near an emissions testing center....hahahahaha. Good to get my daily dose of juvenile humor!
Yeah, I don't know about regulation. Being of a libertarian bent I don't cotton to government interference very much but I figure there's a known high-level risk of STDs in publicly-shared sex toys. I mean that's so grotty. And what level of cleaning could possibly make them safe? Now I'm chuckling again, imagining something like a carwash only with dolls hanging off of cables rotating through; automated bottle-scrubber type brushes suds and ready to deploy...
RigelDog at September 18, 2018 12:39 PM
And what level of cleaning could possibly make them safe?
Sanitizing cabinets? disposable *cough* parts? good ol' bleach? radiation sterilization???
I R A Darth Aggie at September 18, 2018 2:31 PM
Well... go ahead and pass around a public vibrator. Let them use yours.
I mean, since you can tell if there's Hepatitis B on that thing after someone else has used it, there's no need to require the renter to clean it.
You'll know.
And if you get HBV, then you can tell others not to use that company and you'll be completely OK.
Radwaste at September 18, 2018 3:38 PM
By the way, this isn't the only company in this market. See the seriously NSFW Realdoll.com site if you are curious.
Radwaste at September 18, 2018 4:03 PM
Radwaste at September 18, 2018 3:38 PM
__________________________________
Well said.
Haven't there been enough examples of big businesses, at least, not caring about how much they threaten their customers' lives - until they're forced to ACT as if they care?
According to Wikipedia, starting in the late 1970s, regarding airbags: "Ford and GM then spent years lobbying against air-bag requirements."
IIRC, they got a lot of bad publicity for that in the 1980s.
lenona at September 18, 2018 5:26 PM
And now you can't put your kid in the front seat, because of the friggin' airbag.
But anyway, in spite of my lousy luck with women, I still prefer a warm, live woman over some creepy sex bot. But I still don't want them banned; they could provide some relief for Incels or other lonely men.
mpetrie98 at September 19, 2018 11:48 AM
Airbags are a terrible example Lenona. If you are short they are just as likely to kill you as help you. You can even make a comment about airbags being sexist since they are far more likely to harm women than men due to their typical physical differences. Instead they are a perfect example of bad government regulations harming people.
And for the record I'm actually for the technology. The issue is with the specifications that went into the airbag laws. Typical case of specifying things for rare events instead of for average ones leading to more harm.
Ben at September 19, 2018 3:35 PM
Here is the question:
WHY is there a market for this?
Women have jobs, so they can be very picky about mates. If she has to blow someone, he better be 'worth it'. This leaves most men out, and many MANY women single with that Chinese Vibrator as a surrogate.
Many men are ugly, fat, crippled, or psychologically damaged. Since women refuse to date low, what does this leave the men?
What about NORMAL men who seek alternative pleasure like escorts, porn, serial dating, or rubber women?
Women wonder about this and I say #MeToo. A puzzlement for both of us.
I can hear the rebuttal "A man should be BRAVE enough to risk his entire career and be branded as a sexual predator just to date a woman. We aren't ALL crazy."
Blink Blink.
When you can tell us which woman is which type, more men might eschew Plastic Polly. Until then...Go in Pence.
FIDO at September 20, 2018 5:33 AM
Imagine what's going to happen when advanced AI and robotics join to create the movie-star-hot sexbot who doesn't shit-test, gripe, backstab, cheat, or divorce-destroy your life.
It's going to be a real Stepford Wives-level conundrum for some folks.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 20, 2018 10:00 AM
A sex robot can't know when I am hungry and make me a sandwich, then rub her fingers through my hair when she delivers it.
So who wants a tens of thousands of dollar piece of machinery which does what a soft palm and Jergens can do.
FIDO at September 20, 2018 11:11 AM
Hmm.
Is a sexbot halal?
Could solve a lot of problems...
Radwaste at September 20, 2018 4:05 PM
I really don't understand why any man would pay $60 for a half hour with a sex robot when Mama Thumb and her four daughters work for free. That $60 will buy enough Vaseline to last for years.
Rex Little at September 21, 2018 9:51 AM
"A sex robot can't know when I am hungry and make me a sandwich, then rub her fingers through my hair when she delivers it."
Why do you think this?
Radwaste at September 22, 2018 7:20 PM
Personally, though, I’d never bang a dude who owned a sexbot or visited sexbot brothels.
Personally, though, I’d never bang a chick who owned a dildo or visited sex shops.
Right?
According to Wikipedia, starting in the late 1970s, regarding airbags: "Ford and GM then spent years lobbying against air-bag requirements."
IIRC, they got a lot of bad publicity for that in the 1980s.
And right after being forced to install an untested tech they were instantly sued by all the people harmed by them
lujlp at September 23, 2018 9:13 PM
Leave a comment