(see also http://theantifeminist.com/david-futrelle-advocates-child-killing/ (*Trigger Warning*) )
Only yesterday I posted my discovery that Jessica Valenti, leading online feminist, wanted realistic sex dolls to be banned on the grounds that they ‘objectify’ women.
Obviously, as learned readers of this blog will know by now, as well as anybody with an ounce of common sense, Valenti and her fellow feminists want to ban sex dolls because such things, increasingly realistic, threaten to give men sexual independence from women.
Now I learn that feminists in Canada are already drawing up legislation that would limit the sale and ownership of sexbots – realistic androids created for the sexual gratification of men.
Following the recent Ontario/Canada Roundtable on Gender Equality, the below provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.
It is further proposed that provisions 6 and 7 are integrated into the Criminal Code of Canadato ensure uniformity with respect to the illegal creation, use, distribution, advertising, export and import of sexbots which are made in the image of minors under the age of 18. For the purposes of s. 163.1 of the Criminal Codethe definition of “child” should include sexbots created in the image of minors under the age of 18.
…The use of sexbots shall be restricted to government-regulated establishments unless otherwise approved by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence.
…The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
Dr Ian Kerr, a grinning mangina, apparently holds some position as professor of robot ethics at the University of Ottawa, and it appears that this fact gives him the ability to influence government policy and law making.
And what is most terrifying is the glimpse it gives us into how femi-nazi anti-sex laws, which lead to the rape of the male, come to pass. Sex bots are still a few years away, yet already there are ‘experts’ on the ethics of human-robot sexual relationships, feminists whose supposed expertise on such matters means that they can hold a ridiculous conference behind closed doors and then fully expect the government of their land to pass laws that will deny happiness to millions of men and criminilize those men as sex offenders if they dare seek that happiness. Simply because all these ‘experts’ have to say are the magic words ‘need to protect women and children’ and any rational scrutiny, let alone empirical judgement or testing, is not required.
In Ian Kerr’s case, it seems his ability to pass laws that will affect millions of people arises from being a middle-class kid who obtained a degree in philosophy at a second rate university and wrote his doctorate on a subject (ethics of human-robotic relations) that maybe only a dozen other people in the entire world have explored. Sex bots are still some distance away, no society could have an intelligent discussion on what laws need to be passed, because most people are completely unaware of what sexbots even are, let alone what ethical issues they might represent.
This strategy follows that used by feminists in the past with regard to new technology changing porn and sex. For example, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, recently ‘celebrating’ its 20th anniversary, included the outlawing of any pictorial representation of a minor in a sexual context. In other words ‘child pornography, defined to the max. Now, in 1989, any such pictures would be photographs of actual minors. Yet the feminists were careful to word the convention in terms of ‘representation’. Probably few of the 180+ countries that signed the treaty in 1989 realised that the wording of the documents that they were putting pen to paper to would lead to millions of ordinary men being criminalized for clicking on a mouse to view a digitally created anime picture that was merely a possible ‘representation’ of a person under 18.
Similarly, it appears feminists are drawing up laws against sex bots before even most educated people are fully aware of what the consequences of these laws might be for ordinary male sexuality in a future high-tech world. And one thing that keeps feminists motivated in doing this is that they know full well that once passed, it is almost impossible to repeal any sex offender legislation ‘that protects women and children’.
However, what might trip up the femibeasts is that they themselves do not know what the full implications upon society will be if the sexual trade union laws that they create are applied fully and logically in a different world.
For example, recently, a British airport’s security added x-ray scanners that are so powerful that they literally create an image of the naked body of the person being scanned. But now a ‘child rights’ group has pointed out that the creation of those images, when the person who passes through the scanner is under 18 (or looks under 18), is contrary to the government’s own virtual child pornography laws. The x-ray scanner has now been scrapped.
Ian Kerr and his fellow feminists want any sexbot that looks under 18 to be banned full stop, under the pretence of virtual child pornography laws that criminalize the creation of any sexual image of a minor. Never mind that such ultra-realistic androids would surely prevent ‘paedophiles’ from having the urge to have sex with real minors.
I would suggest that in the year 2020, when Josef Shiele of Bremerhaven, Germany, becomes the first person to be dragged before the courts for having sex with a cute, youthful looking Japanese sex bot (well, if they’re all going to be banned you may as well get yourself a good one), he takes his case to the European Court of Justice and points out that this is a gross violation of his human rights and dignity. That he should be punished for ‘creating’ the realistic, 3-dimensional sexual image of a desirable nymph when millions of women attempt to do the same each and every day with their own bodies (in order to be attractive to men like himself and all the other ‘perverts’ who constitute the vast majority of the male sex).
This will become even more absurd in the coming years, as scientists finally develop ways of obtaining the age old female dream (and men’s) – of permanently giving women the appearance of youthful, virgin skin. Already rich, middle-aged women are flocking to expensive Asian clinics in order to have stem cell therapy with the intention of giving their skin a more youthful (pre-pubescent, in fact) look. And by all accounts, this therapy will probably work, at least when mastered in a few years time.
It’s going to be a strange and brave new world, in just a couple of decades or less, when virtually ALL women, even 70 year olds, are walking around looking like Miley Cyrus. Who knows how such a thing will change the dynamics of the free sexual marketplace? One thing is for sure – the same feminists who create these absurd virtual child pornography laws that criminlize ordinary men for victimless crimes, will be the first to seek the treatment that turns their faces and bodies into that of buxom 16 year old girls.
After all, how could they possibly hope to compete with the sexbots otherwise?
If you would like to contact Ian Kerr and tell him what you think of his shameful participation in the rape of the male, his e-mail address is : firstname.lastname@example.org