|Don't hate me cuz you ain't me|
The College Fix reports:
"John Banzhaf, a well-known activist professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School, says experts disagree on the consequences of allowing people to engage in mock acts of rape with humanoid dolls, and lawmakers should vet this issue as soon as possible."
Okay, right off the bat, I already feel like I don't like this guy.
"activist professor of public interest law" just screams "worst kind of person there is" at me.
And how on Earth are you going to police "mock acts of rape with humanoid dolls?"
Are we just going to put a camera in every bedroom 1984 style, that you can't turn off, and if someone starts getting too rough with their sex doll, we send the police over?
Is this guy serious?
Is he thinking through what he's saying at all?
The article continues:
"Saying there’s evidence rape sexbots may significantly increase the chance of rape to real women, the law should 'no longer stand by and blindly ignore a major potential problem by doing nothing,' he said in an email to The College Fix."
Okay maybe it is a problem that someone would want to rape their sexbot, but what can possibly, realistically be done about that?
|I have no feelings|
Because someone might do something bad with them?
Well you'll just have to ban everything then.
So, what? Put a little tag on each sexbot, just like on a mattress, that says it's against federal law to rape your sexbot?
Yeah I'm sure that'll stop them.
Only way to stop this from happening is put a camera in every man, woman, and child's bedroom, and if the NSA sees anybody pulling their sexbot's hair too hard, we send in a SWAT team.
So, Banzhaf, what's your solution?
"The obvious first step would be to have hearings and do studies to determine just how serious the threat is, whether there are any real benefits to having sexbots programmed to simulate being raped, and then what if any new laws, regulations, etc. might be appropriate."
Oh yes. The obvious first step.
|"I don't know, Sergeant. She looks pretty into it..."|
It's always obvious to any busybody, lawyering, tax dollar grubbing, "there ought to be a law!" type of person...
That whatever bright idea or alarmist fear they have should be the subject of endless hearings and studies... and tax dollars.
"...whether there are any real benefits to having sexbots programmed to simulate being raped..."
LOLOL at this part!
This guy is worried about robot rape and his solution is to spend a million dollars on a study to determine if there are any real benefits to programming a rape setting into sex bots!
How does that study go?
Is he actually saying we should pay someone to rape a sex doll, then take a survey about the experience?
This is how legislators think. These people are nuts.
Let's skip the hearings and just get right down to it, Banzhaf...
(By the way, Banzhaf stands for "bans half the fun things in the world because you might be evil.")
Say they pass a law banning sexbot manufacturers from manufacturing robots that make crying sounds.
Because why would someone want a sexbot that cries?
Okay. If your sexbot is crying during sex, well, then you're having a rape fantasy with your sexbot.
But maybe someone wants more than sex from their sexbot.
Maybe they want a full-time, fantasy companion, someone they can pretend is their best friend and lover.
I don't know.
And maybe they would want a realistic as possible robot that expresses the full range of human emotions.
So they can simulate every kind of experience in a relationship with them.
Maybe they would want their robotic companion to cry so they can comfort them. Just like real couples do when sad things happen.
Maybe they want their robots to cry with them when they're crying over something sad.
|"Sara, I'm so sad that I don't have a real woman to cuddle with."|
"Me too, Bradley." *cries*
"Oh Sara! I LOVE you! Come here..."
*frantic sloppy tongue kissing*
Hahaha, I don't know.
But who the hell is John Banzhaf?
And how is any of that his business?
He's going to stop some sad, lonely guy from having the closest thing to a female companion he's ever going to get?
And from getting whatever features he wants that a manufacturer is willing to provide for his dollar?
Because somebody might act out evil fantasies with their robots?
And you think those guys aren't going to act out those fantasies anyways, even if the robot doesn't have a "rape" or "black out drunk" or "crying" setting?
I mean for a guy who's so concerned about other people's perversity, John Banzhaf seems awfully unabashed about public masturbation, because that's what his remarks amount to.
And calling for hearings and studies, bro...
The reason why the government does hearings and studies is because it cannot literally, physically masturbate.
Another relevant question:
What if someone's fantasy is to be raped by their sexbot?
Does Banzhaf want to study and regulate that too?
In a 2009 study published by the Journal of Sex Research:
- 220 out of 355 undergraduate women surveyed said that they've had a rape fantasy.
- If you picked a woman at random out of those 220, the frequency of this fantasy would most likely be about four times a year.
- 49 of the 355 women surveyed said they indulge in a fantasy of being raped "at least once a week."
Meanwhile VICE Magazine reports that:
Search query data reveals women who search for porn are twice as likely as their male counterparts to search for ultra violent porn.
Dr. Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, a former Google data scientist, was given complete access to PornHub's search and views data for an upcoming book. He writes:
"If there is a genre of porn in which violence is perpetrated against a woman, my analysis of the data shows that it almost always appeals disproportionately to women."
Just so we're clear, that's porn with tags like:
"extreme brutal gangbang," "forced," "rape," "painful anal crying," and "public disgrace"
We live in a strange world.
Do what you will with this information.
But for God's sake, please do not shoot the messenger.
People who are a lot more valuable than me are dropping off like flies for reporting the results of scientific studies about women.
My point is there are almost definitely going to be people who want to simulate that they are the one being raped by their sexbot.
Are those fantasies off limits too?
|"The safeword is 'toaster.'"|
Does John Banzhaf not have enough of his own problems to keep him from wanting to make that his business as well?
What's so offensive to me about Banzhaf's remarks is the insidious underlying subtext.
It's more noise in the din of endless anti-penis propaganda by militant academic feminists.
It's part of the ugly slander against men that we are at base a bunch of violent rapists.
And that all it takes is a violent video game or sex with a robot to trigger our uncontrollable raping nature into action.
It's absolute horse shit.
Imagine John Banzhaf just crouching down with his pants around his ankles and shitting all over your dick.
That's what he's doing.
He doesn't have anything better to do with his time.
But even worse than all of that...
At an even more important and urgent level of analysis...
This sexbot alarmism is proof of the mental weakness and moral cowardice of public intellectuals in our era.
You've got Banzhaf turning to the U.S. government to regulate people's sexual activities with robots.
As if the U.S. government has any shred of moral authority when it comes to the use of robots.
You know, the very institution that loves to use drones to murder people from the skies?
|I bet some family in Pakistan wishes this loser was at|
home raping a sexbot all day instead of this shit.
How can you justify this organization's mass murder, Banzhaf?
Justify it by turning to them as a moral authority on other issues? Without a word against their worst of crimes against humanity?
You clearly lack any sane sense of awareness and perspective.
If you're concerned about robots with a fantasy rape setting...
Why don't you call for a ban on robots with an actual murder setting?