Why Banning Sex Robots is a Bad Idea

posted in: The Bigger Picture | 0

Don't Date Robots!

I read with interest an article on RT.com today about a campaign a UK academic is launching to have sex robots banned. There are several reasons why this is a Bad Idea(tm):

1) Banning anything does not work because psychopaths, such as those running the UK government, do not give a single hoot about whether something is banned or not when it comes to their own self-gratification. If, as abundant recent evidence has shown, such psychopaths are willing to torture and rape little children in service of their own perverted impulses, then they won’t think twice (or possibly even once) about manufacturing or using sex robots to get their ‘thrills’. Such creatures constitute a far greater danger to the general public than what amount to slightly more sophisticated versions of sex dolls.

2) Banning things usually creates a black market, with the associated crime and corruption that goes with it, if there is any chance that a section of the population would be willing to pay for such ‘products’.

3) Telling people that they cannot have something can stimulate demand for exactly that thing – the ‘reverse psychology’ factor – even when there might not be much inclination towards such activities. The parallels with historical alcohol and drug prohibitions are fairly obvious, I would think.

4) Banning new technologies is historically ineffective, and there is no reason to think banning sex robots would be any different. It would be more effective to manage such technologies with an appropriate regulatory framework.

This does not mean that I think sex robots are a good thing however – far from it. The sponsor of the campaign – Dr Kathleen Richardson – makes a good point when she talks about how such things can contribute to the objectification and exploitation of women. It seems that she does not fully understand the context of the kind of society in which these technologies are being developed however, and is making some massive assumptions. I strongly suggest she read Andrew Lobaczewski’s Political Ponerology, to get an idea of why her efforts are doomed to fail.

And for all you drooling perverts looking forward to the day when the first ‘Cherry 2000‘ rolls off the assembly line – seriously, get a life!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.