Below is my column in The Hill on the legal and legislative actions taken with regard to increasing numbers of robotic “companions” around the world. The resulting debate is testing the limits of privacy and sexual freedom.
Here is the column:
Consider this: A brothel opens, offering “sexual services,” including “experiences” with girls under 15 years old.
Typically, the police response to such a brothel would make the Normandy landing look like a small skirmish. But this brothel, Chub AI, is a virtual brothel, reportedly “staffed” by artificially intelligent bots.
The controversy is part of a broader debate over sex bots and even sex bot brothels. Not long ago, the first sex robot brothel, Lovedoll UK, was shut down in Gateshead, England. Even individuals such as Steven Crawford have purchased a doll and then pimped it out to customers. With the rise in such sales, the number of legal and legislative actions are rising as well.
Over 50 years ago, what became known as the “sexual revolution” began in the United States with a debate over the scope of privacy and sexual freedom. We are now facing a second such debate, but liberal voices that once called for sexual freedom are now advocating bans and criminal penalties to deny the right to choose a different type of companion: sex dolls and bots.
Houston’s city council unanimously blocked a proposed “sex robot brothel” from opening in the city, which would have been the nation’s first pay-by-the-hour robot brothel.
“Westworld”-like technology is now on a collision course with long-standing privacy principles. For those fearing an “ex machina” future, there is an equal number of people fearing an ex-privacy future in the balance of this debate.
A growing market for both sex bots and dolls is fueling the debate around the world. For companies such as Kinky S Dolls, the brothels are the equivalent to road tests for prospective owners of anthropomorphic bots that can cost $3,000 each.
Sex dolls (which are anthropomorphic but not mechanical) are already widely used privately and increasingly in brothels. One Canadian brothel offered “six classy, sophisticated, and adventurous ladies; curated for the discerning gentlemen”…starting at $80 for a half hour.
Since Ovid’s story of Pygmalion in the “Metamorphoses,” the dynamic of humans and inanimate objects has been a part of our literature. In that story, the lonely sculptor created his perfect woman out of ivory, only to fall in love with the statue. He prayed to Venus to give him a lover like his statue Galatea. She did so, and “the maiden felt the kisses, blushed and, lifting her timid eyes up to the light, saw the sky and her lover at the same time.”
The robotic world is approaching its Pygmalion moment. New anthropomorphic devices are being programmed with more and more human features and lifelike responses. With breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, they can respond to questions and even display emotions from jealousy to desire. They are developing warm and reflective responses to touch.
Indeed, Pygmalian’s story captures both the fantasy and the controversy over the explosion of sexbots. While both male and female bots are available, the consumer base for bots remains largely men, and the objections have been almost exclusively focused on gynoids, or fembots. For feminists, the sexbots are allowing men to objectify women and domination fantasies.
In The Guardian, journalist Jenny Kleeman denounced new bots that can hold conversations and even joke precisely because they are “a dream woman” for men who “exist only for men’s use.”
Kathleen Richardson, a robot ethicist at the De Montfort University, wrote a paper calling for a ban on all machines, but not human-like dolls. Richardson insisted that “the development of sex robots will further reinforce relations of power that do not recognize both parties as human subjects.” A supporter of the Campaign Against Sex Robots, Richardson warned “technology is not neutral. It’s informed by class, race and gender. Political power informs the development of technology.”
This debate is different in that the fear is not how a product can harm humans, but how humans are simulating harm through a product.
From a legal perspective, these sex robots are nothing more than a ramped up toaster with a fetching name. Even the term “brothel” can be challenged. In Paris, a sex doll brothel was opened and licensed as a “game center.” The analogy is based on the fact that bots, in the view of customers, are simply machines designed for recreation.
The new bot battle is an extension of prior fights over pornography and prostitution. Some advocates long argued that pornography constitutes objectification and fuels violence against women. In the case of prostitution, many libertarians argue that two consenting adults should be allowed to contract for sex.
Our current system has a glaring disconnect, where you can get paid to have sex on camera for a movie with multiple partners, but not to have sex in private.
The bots remove the alleged victim in these scenarios. No one is being directly harmed when someone has relations with what is essentially an advanced appliance.
This issue becomes far more difficult, however, when the bots are designed to resemble children. Such devices have already been banned in some countries, including recently in the U.S. The possession or import of child sex dolls has led to arrests in various countries, including the seizure of 123 such dolls in the United Kingdom.
In the U.S., the “Curbing Realistic Exploitative Electronic Pedophilic Robots (CREEPER) Act” was notable in its sweeping underlying claims about not only childlike robots, but seemingly all robots. “Dolls and robots not only lead to rape, but they make rape easier by teaching the rapist how to overcome resistance and subdue the victim,” it states. Moreover, it maintains, “Dolls and robots are intrinsically related to abuse of minors, and they cause the exploitation, objectification, abuse, and rape of minors.”
There is now a push to pass a bill referred to as CREEPER 2.0, which would outlaw not only the importation and transportation of such dolls but also their possession and sale.
The vast majority of people have little problem with banning such childlike sex bots. These disgusting tools are depicting individuals who cannot consent in any context. However, the definition is vague and could raise legal questions in barring products that are perceived as having “features that resemble those of a minor.”
The legal problems are magnified in broader efforts to ban sex dolls and bots. In 2002, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that dealt with virtual or depicted child pornography. That included purely computer-generated images where there is no actual child or victim. Both provisions were found to violate the First Amendment, and the court rejected the type of assumed harm claimed by CREEPER.
In the absence of a direct victim, we are left with a pure moral or social judgment on the private tastes and relations of adults.
In Paris, feminists opposed sex-doll brothels on the basis that the dolls cannot consent and allow for violent fantasies. Lorraine Questiaux of the feminist group Mouvement du Nid (Nest Movement) called the brothel a “place that makes money from simulating the rape of a woman.”
In Sweden, feminist organizations moved to ban sex bots as advancing the “objectifying, sexualised and degrading attitude to women found in today’s mainstream pornography.” They object to the right of men to create artificial women who “obey their smallest command” and “cannot say no to something that the man wants.”
For many libertarians, the answer remains the same, the matter should begin and end with personal choice.
In the series “Westworld,” “host” Annie asked a reluctant guest “if you can’t tell the difference, does it matter if I’m real or not?”
Legally, the answer is no. But as that difference erodes, the question as to whether it matters to others will grow.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
I guess my thought would be “what are you going to talk about”. Some people probably have no desire for talk but others might. You could then ask for conservative, liberal, progressive, reactionary etc. dominating or submissive. I like to think of the sexbot of Mr Universe in “Serenity”. Of course she did not show good judgement and spilled the beans on Mel and nearly got him killed. What secrets could be spilled at the ultimate moment?
Considering that the sexual revolution, birth control, and abortion were the focus of feminists rights for decades and………… are simultaneously the main enablers of the sexual objectification of women over the same time period (sex without responsibility), I find it exceedingly ironic that feminists are suddenly concerned with the very sexual objectification of women they have enabled with their progressive values. Its hilarious to see them suddenly pivot toward conservative moral values.
Women’s equality can be a tricky thing. In the law, I’ve found that most of the time women insist on equality and getting rid of old stereotypes, it’s in an effort to get the woman to lose the case. For example, no-fault divorce, or having to give the ring back after the male fiancee cheats, or not being the presumptive caretaker of children, or equalizing car insurance rates, and many more examples. The only example I’ve seen that goes the other way is getting rid of the old common law presumption that a husband could recover for loss of consortium but the wife could not.
Bottom line, for women to become equal with men, they have to take a step down. If I were a woman, I’d be asking myself: is that what we really want?
Aren’t robot brothels for other robots to have a good time?
Yeah, another indication of civilization in decline.
No one wants to have to put in effort for a real relationship. Better to just have a virtual relationship, right?
Read an article on The Free Press about men giving up on even trying for relationships with women.
One influencer paid to have a AI bot of herself created. For $20 a month, the AI bot would send you texts, the occasional picture. As AI it learned what you liked and adjusted to your needs.
At the time of the printing of the article, the woman had 1,000 subscribers, with another 4,100 on a waiting list. She was in the process of leasing more server space/bandwidth.
If that is your thing, in the privacy of your own home, no one is getting hurt, no animals or children are involved not sure the morality or immorality of it can be legislated.
“Consider this: A brothel opens, offering “sexual services,” including “experiences” with girls under 15 years old.”
People, especially the young, always test the limits, looking for a quick high no matter what provides it. We can set the limits high or low, but as parents, we need to set limits to guide children in the right direction.
The question is whether life is about the transient highs or something else. Transient joys (or ‘highs’) are *transient* so while they might be pleasurable for a short time, they aren’t long-term. That is why the adults in the room must have plans for a lifestyle other than fleeting ones.
The adults need to provide a lifestyle that is self-perpetuating, meeting the needs of civilization’s development.
S. Meyer. It’s worse than you think. Some of these Bots are antisemitites!
Antisemitism no secret.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYZBKqemQrU
*update. looks like the U.S. and a few close allies have pulled the plug on UN Refugee funding in Gaza .. . ‘no soup for Palestinians’!
When it turns out that the agency’s staff are actual terrorists who attacked Israel on 10/7/23, it reveals to most reasonable people that “pulling the plug” has nothing at all to do with soup. On this particular issue, you have proved over and over again that you are not a reasonable person.
The funding was not going to any Palestinian refugees. It was going to Hamas.
Exactly, and in Gaza, it turns out that UNRWA = Hamas.
-OMFK
As I understand it, for obvious reasons the leadership of the terrorist organization ‘Hamas’ are not in Gaza, but reside in Lebanon, Qatar, UEI, bum-fcuk Egypt and other far-flung locations. The militant ‘wing’ that attacked on Oct 7 numbered around 1500-2000 ‘fighters’ afaict. The Hamas organization as a whole numbers >25,000 members, by most accounts, with half that number fighting in Gaza.
If Bibi IDF kills them all (h/t S. Meyer), that still leaves approximately 2.275 million people in Gaza without food, water, medical care, shelter or any immediate essential necessities of life. .. assuming the they can avoid Isreal’s total war on Hamas in such close proximity.
The UNRWA is the largest humanitarian actor in Gaza and some 3,000 of its core staff out of 13,000 in Gaza continue to report to work despite the war, according to the agency.
UNRWA’s Lazzarini said two million people out of about 2.3 million population in Gaza depend on the agency’s humanitarian operation.
“I am shocked such decisions are taken based on alleged behavior of a few individuals and as the war continues, needs are deepening & famine looms,” the UNRWA chief posted on X.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/28/which-countries-have-cut-funding-to-unrwa-and-why
“the leadership of the terrorist organization ‘Hamas’ are not in Gaza,”
Dgsnowden, the leaders of Hamas, live luxurious lives, most prominently in Doha, Qatar, living a life of luxury in posh surroundings paid for by the Palestinian people who live in poverty. The soldiers and commanders of fighting units are mainly in Gaza. It is not surprising that Al Jazeera has its headquarters Doha as well. They are a closely-knit group.
When things settle down, and quiet is restored, some, if not all of these leaders will end up dead.
“The militant ‘wing’ that attacked on Oct 7 numbered around 1500-2000 ‘fighters’ afaict.”
I am not confident of the actual numbers, but the attackers were augmented by what you call civilians attacking unarmed civilians celebrating Simchas Torah. Barbarians butchered them.
“The Hamas organization as a whole numbers >25,000 members,”
That is close to the 30,000 IDF number released about six weeks after the start of the war. But these numbers are fluid, so we don’t know how many more entered the battle or how many “support troops” were involved.
You assume only half are fighting in Gaza. Where is the other half? Do you think they are at the pool in Doha?
“If Bibi IDF kills them all (h/t S. Meyer), that still leaves approximately 2.275 million people in Gaza without food, water, medical care, shelter or any immediate essential necessities of life.”
No, it doesn’t. If Hamas soldiers surrender, the war is over, and emergency supplies can go to the people. You understand that Gazans eat carbon-based food, not concrete tunnels, Right?
Much of UNRWA’s food goes to Hamas, who sells it to people, and a lot of the food isn’t edible. People do not eat guns and bullets. There was also a backlog of food, but UNRWA’s delivery system was faulty. Maybe weapons shipments got in the way.
“UNRWA’s Lazzarini said… ”
You probably believe the Duranty report in the NYT about how wonderful Stalin’s Russia was. You are not alone. Foolishness exists in large numbers. Many are figuring out the truth, and funding to UNRWA decreased. Grants to the UN should decrease as well in the direction of zero, but that is another story.
“S. Meyer. It’s worse than you think. Some of these Bots are antisemitites! Antisemitism no secret.”
Dgsnowden, you say that in and with an odd type of jest. Though AI can develop antisemitic attitudes, it can also create hatred for blacks, peaceful Muslims, or anyone. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism has been around from the time the Torah was given. Today, your attitudes can be translated through AI into an infinite number of variations and lies, which is not a pleasant thought to me.
Your type of delusions led to the death of many in my family and presently threaten my family’s and my existence. Your fantasies killed millions over the centuries, six million in the last century, so when you jest in your odd type of way, understand it is meaningful to people around you who suffered or empathize with the suffering of others. You propagate anti-Semitism and genocide just like the Nazis.
You unquestioningly support the terrorist group Hamas and the people who voted them in while supporting them with their money and the lives of their children. “From the River to the Sea” is calling for the genocide of the Jewish people.
My prayers are for peace, but not a peace where another group rises to enslave their people and kill Jews. I strive for real peace based on the truth and long-term security for all. That is a difficult feat for man, inherently self-serving and requires the use of his intellect to restrain himself from hurting others. Your biases, where thought is concerned, fails.
*update. looks like the U.S. and a few close allies have pulled the plug on UN Refugee funding in Gaza .. . ‘no soup for Palestinians’!”
Dgsnowden, that is correct, ‘no soup for Palestinians’, but there never was any, as most of the money for soup went for the purchase of arms and the building of rockets and tunnels.
Would this be an example of humans going after “strange flesh”? Just asking. It didn’t work out well when the angelic beings went after human women. Just saying. Maybe this is analogous. If you are an atheist, feel free to trash these sentiments; I understand where you’re coming from, but I am starting from a different premise than you, so kindly understand where I’m coming from.
The bottom line is, I don’t think we can reason this through satisfactorily without considering the spiritual implications. Legislators are permitted to take such considerations into account when drafting secular legislation. A state’s police powers — i.e., authority to pass laws to advance and protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community – include legislation based on moral judgments, such as outlawing obscenity, zoning for stripper clubs, laws against animal cruelty, and the like. I’m generally libertarian, but not to an extreme. I recognize that ultimately there is a higher authority that we are all answerable to, and whose principles are evident from nature.
“[K]indly understand where I’m coming from.”
That’s very clear: legislate the Bible — aka theocracy.
The android, Commander Data of the USS Enterprise tells the Borg Queen that he is sexually, fully functional. Prepare to be assimilated.
All that’s needed after the encounter, is an oil-filter change and recharge.
Dear Prof Turley,
Timely work. It’s still not too difficult to spot common ‘pleasure models’, but higher-functioning models often require over 100 computations, cross referenced.
It was too late, by the time I discovered my Ex was a Replicant. A ‘skin job’ .. . human tissue over heartless exotic metal alloy.
The only ‘legal’ questioned revolved around whether or not she knew she was a Replicant – iow ‘self aware’.
How could it not know what it is?
” my Ex was a Replicant”
Did she go for the Dishwasher or the Trash Compactor in the Divorce?
Political congruence (“=”) demands respect for marriage act without discrimination for sexual modes and intelligence constructs.
That said, civil unions for all consenting adults… robots and LLM. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Polygamists and friends with “benefits” are selectively excluded. #BinaryBigotry
Sure beats the old stories about inflatable blow-up mannequins left behind by truckers in Super-8 and Red Roof Inns.
“Dolls and robots not only lead to rape, but they make rape easier by teaching the rapist how to overcome resistance and subdue the victim,”
And yet we are told over and over again that violent video games have no effect on a developing childs mind. Or drag queens talking about sex to minors has no effect either.
I have always said that if the Star Trek holodeck and replicator were ever really developed, it would be the end of man kind. If the holodeck could truly be virtual, who would leave it to return back to reality? If replicators existed, there would be no value in anything.
One last thought, what if the sex doll identifies a refrigerator?
The sex doll identifying as a refrigerator would probably take over Whoopie Goldberg’s place on The View.
No matter what it looks like it is still just an appliance. For there to be a crime there has to be a victim.
Currentsitguy,
Give it time.
Some guy in CA will marry his sex-bot, demand it be given “human” rights and some nit wit lawmaker in CA will write up a bill and it will pass.
Last paragraph is a bit confusing. Legally, it doesn’t matter if one has forced sex with a person or an inanimate object? Hmmm…
Withour passing (superfluous) judgement on the emotional health of any adult who would be in the market for a child sex doll, the proposed legislation would make use of this type of appliance into the ultimate thought crime. Take a look at who favors making such victimless activity illegal. Those are your self-identified demagogues. Shun them (at minimum).
I’ve long predicted that when intelligent sex robots become widely availble, it will force women to become kinder.
There is something truly ironic or is it insincere that angry feminist’s are against sex dolls.
Gosh, I hate to admit that is true on so many levels.
Is masturbating while imagining something which will never happen illegal or immoral? How about masturbating with an object, a dildo, say? How about with a vibrator? How about with a Fleshlight? How about a Womanizer?
The use of a sex doll with or without a built in AI is all the same, right? If imagining the doll as being childlike pops your cork with no harm to any real child what is the harm?
Does the use of an adultlike sex doll lead to real rape of a real person? Does porn lead to rape?
Does the use of an adultlike sex doll lead to real rape of a real person? Does porn lead to rape?
This is one of those spots feminism gets its logic twisted in pretzel.
Rape is a crime of violence, not desire. Or, so I have been lectured on.
But, if you get into something like Rap lyrics, the physical degradation of women is common. So driven by ill will, and not desire. But Rap lyrics are a sacrament to the woke left. Meaning no adverse out comes can be drawn from Rap.
Not sure what to do about that, in this discussion. Other than make the observation.
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
Frank Herbert, Dune
“The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
Jeremiah 17:9
This is a good overlook of the situation.
Not having given it much thought, I immediately go to my core values.
Let the people at the smallest govt political units, make the laws they live by.
Let the cities and and counties decide. A lot like alcohol. Not that long ago there were dry counties and cities. It was reported the last dry city in the nation, wet. Richland City Wisconsin went wet in 1986. Before then you had to drive outside city limits to one of several establishments serving booze. Although the local Feed and Grain store was allowed to throw a big alcohol fueled customer appreciation day. Where several streets were closed down and more than one beer tent was set up.
So let the cities and counties (you had to go outside Las Vegas to legally pay for sex) do what the citizens vote to sanction.
I need to amend a bit. I know of at least one town in Iowa that will not issues a permit for liquor by the drink. I’m sure there must be others like that through the nation. I am also aware of city councils strictly limiting how many licenses they issue. In essence keeping out the competition.
How bad has society gotten that people prefer robots over humans. Sadly women are accepting their destruction the Globalist are planning!
I just know we’re getting sicker by the day.
Greg, you need to study a bit of history. Sex has been happening for a long time.