Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT - Strips 3346-3350 (7th to 11th November 2016)
Case:
--- Quote from: TinPenguin on 11 Nov 2016, 06:45 ---Blurry? Colourry? Hue-rry?
--- End quote ---
Hue-y?
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB5YkmjalDg
jheartney:
--- Quote from: JimC on 11 Nov 2016, 07:20 ---
--- Quote from: jheartney on 11 Nov 2016, 06:21 ---I should think that probation officers have better things to do than try policing this sort of thing.
--- End quote ---
My personal experience is about zero, but allegedly prostitution may be associated with exploitation of the vulnerable and/or drug problems. Arguably a good probation officer *should* be concerned if their client becomes involved with it, legal or not. After all rehabilitation is part of a probation officer's responsibilities.
I 'm not sure whether the fine detail of which appendages and/or orifices are involved is that important. If attempted sexual gratification is being provided in exchange for money its a different game to say two teenagers experimenting.
--- End quote ---
This begs the question of whether or not this is actually prostitution. Leaving aside whether robots can have sexual contact (does my laptop get aroused when I put a CD in it? Is it sexual when I insert the hose into my car at the gas station?), the whole joke of the comic is that neither May nor Pintsize are being gratified by this silly combination.
But I'll go further. Suppose we say this is something beyond simulated sexuality. What compelling state interest is there in prohibiting it? Who is being harmed? Why stop consenting adults from engaging in consensual sex acts which harm no one, even if there is money involved?
hakko504:
--- Quote from: jheartney on 11 Nov 2016, 22:35 ---Is it sexual when I insert the hose into my car at the gas station?
--- End quote ---
This clip (SFW, gas commercial) hints that the answer may be yes.
oddtail:
--- Quote from: jheartney on 11 Nov 2016, 22:35 ---But I'll go further. Suppose we say this is something beyond simulated sexuality. What compelling state interest is there in prohibiting it? Who is being harmed? Why stop consenting adults from engaging in consensual sex acts which harm no one, even if there is money involved?
--- End quote ---
The horrible things that happen because of prostitution notwithstanding, ALL your questions fully apply to real-life prostitution and the debate of whether it should be legal or not...
It can be argued that illegal prostitution is the worst possible thing for the safety, respectability, financial and economic status, and general well-being of prostitutes. I have yet to see a compelling argument against legal prostitution, especially as it is my strong conviction that making prostitution illegal is *never* a means to eliminate prostitution, once it is illegal it is ignored unless it is specifically required to act against a prostitute. Prostitution is still alive and well, it's not even fought against all that hard. But there's a way to attack someone and dehumanise them, including by the state/law enforcement/system, because they engage in sex work.
It's a tool of oppression and control, not a tool of protection, based on any and all evidence I've seen. It's a "have your cookie and eat it too" approach that allows for the marginalization, vilification, divide-and-conquering of sex workers while still making the profession thrive, catering to the needs of prostitutes' clients (who are rarely punished as harshly OR despised as much as the prostitutes themselves, despite the fact that this attitude makes no sense), *and* forcing many people into sex work, either againts their will or semi-against their will. And while they are harmed this way, they are still seen as the source of the problem by the average Joe, because they engage in a "bad" thing (the fact that they may not actually willingly choose to being usually completely glossed over).
Granted, I brought real life into a comic discussion, but I think it's a pretty interesting point of discussion to come from once you abstract this into robots. The question "who is being harmed?" here is quite obvious because the element of physical stimulation is gone or blurred, as are most of the social and psychological entanglements that are there for humans.
But once you insert those into the mix again, carefully enough, the questions you ask are still relevant. Not as clear-cut, because sex-related stuff does result in harm to people, but I don't think the core of the problem becomes changed in any meaningful way.
And now I done and opened a can of worms... I do wish robot sexuality was more explored in the comic, as silly as this comic is. I think one of the best things about fiction is what it can say about real life. This goes especially for sci-fi.
JimC:
--- Quote from: jheartney on 11 Nov 2016, 22:35 ---Why stop consenting adults from engaging in consensual sex acts which harm no one,
--- End quote ---
This all depends on your definitions of adult, consent and harm, all of which have been radically different in different societies and cultures. As I don't look around me and see that I'm in a perfect society, and as I'm just about old enough to have witnessed significant changes in how those three words are used, I think it unwise to be too dogmatic about what is right and wrong. I think it reasonably safe, however, to predict that in 40 years time some aspects of the current anglo american liberal consensus (to whatever extent it exists) will be regarded as very peculiar indeed, but I have no idea which ones. I certainly would have failed to predict current interpretations when I was 18. In the unlikely event I'm still around (please no) I shan't much care!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version