Tuesday, October 02, 2018

So many questions about H-Town sex-robot ban

Even the Chronicle's headline, "City Council may move to block sex robots near Galleria," raises so many questions ....

Will Houston only prohibit sex robots near the Galleria, and if so why has it alone been designated a sex-robot free zone? Will there be specified areas of town where one is allowed to have sex with robots? Areas where it's required?

It's not clear to me in which part of Houston it's legal to engage in coitus with a sex robot - whoops, oh yeah ... it's everywhere.

The Chronicle quoted an attorney declaring, “There are currently no laws in the U.S. to prevent the sale of the type of dolls intended for this ‘robot brothel."

For the record: If the City Council is interfering with their constituents' robot coitus, is that a cock-block, a bot-block, a bot-cock-block, or some other iteration Grits hasn't considered?

It feels like certain terms need to be updated for the scenario. The phrase "sex machine," for example, takes on completely different connotations.

If a person voids the warranty on one of these machines, would they be charged with a deviant sex act?

For that matter, which movements by the City Council, in particular, will block bot cocks? 

City Councils in Texas can only create Class C misdemeanors; they cannot create new crimes whose punishment involves jail time. So will the robots be ticketed? Or will their owners receive the citation while the bots are seized as contraband?

If police begin to seize sex bots, I'd expect the night shift in the HPD evidence room to become a much more popular assignment.

Or will this be a zoning initiative, where the City blocks bot cocks in some sections of town and not others? And how will neighborhoods know whether theirs is considered sex-robot friendly or if, as near the Galleria, they have been designated a Pleasure-Free-Zone?

Just to mention it, "brothel" appears to be a term used only by their critics, not the company itself. But the Chron story repeated the term ten times in one story and five times in another, including in both headlines. Not that they're taking sides, or anything.

Never mind that this is a "brothel" in which, under current law, no one can be prosecuted for solicitation, pimping, human trafficking, etc., or that the vicimization/degradation has been delegated to machines, which might be a better situation than the Best-Little-Whorehouse-In-Texas model.

It has to do with sex, so we'd better ban it.

The whole brouhaha began because "Toronto-based KinkySdollS had announced plans to open a Houston branch where 'adult love dolls' constructed of synthetic skin and highly articulated skeletons would be available 'to rent before you buy.'

To be fair, an adult love doll sounds like a big investment, so maybe rent before you buy isn't such a bad idea.

How many boat owners' spouses wish their partners had taken such a precaution?

Regardless, the Outrage-Industrial-Complex kicked into gear. Mayor Sylvester Turner soon announced he will not tolerate the sale of what amount to elaborate sex toys in his fair city.

However, the mayor comes at the argument from a point of weakness, knowing full well that, if the business opens, there is almost certainly a market for it. Hence, the need for a City Council vote.

For the time being, apparently, we're going to ignore the fact that the constitutional precedent against banning sale of sex toys is already well established. (If you'd forgotten, Sen. Ted Cruz can remind you; he's been through this fight.) 

These stories tickled my funnybone, but they also show how ill-conceived criminal laws get passed, with politicians and the media conjoined in a corrupt confederacy to "do something" about a made-up problem. 

The breathless response - bandying around the term "brothel" to maximize the shame/scandal factor aimed at a new local business - smacks of a prudery-based overreaction by government, intersecting with the media's need to promote salacious stories. Not exactly our society's best moment.

In the end, your correspondent agrees with the assessment of the Endgadget writer who declared sex robots "no more dangerous or awe-inspiring than a Roomba." And surely the government has better things to do than specify which body parts one can and can't insert into a Roomba.


Gadfly said...

Since Houston doesn't have zoning, how can it designate any part of the city a robot-free zone anyway?

Anonymous said...

Or of all the things in Houston this is where they draw the line...

Oil refinery next to a daycare? Sure!
Strip club next to a school? Who are we to judge!
Sex robots next to the mall though? This I cannot stand sir!

BarkGrowlBite said...

Houston is No. 1 in the world ..... laughing stock that is. But Houston should be lauded, not laughed at, for protecting these life-like dolls from being forced into sex work and becoming the victims of sex trafficking.

Anonymous said...

''It has to do with sex, so we'd better ban it.'' And quickly, before having sex with toys leads to experimenting or use of other appliances for same. For that matter, it might encourage sex with humans too.
Please note the number of comments given on this subject Grits.. Real hard core or in this case maybe hard cock crime reporting such as this gets concerned citizens thinking and involved.

Anonymous said...

If you throw all of the sex robots out of work, they are likely to end up taking other jobs we want people to perform like teaching school or barista or city council work or truck driver. If the powers that be tip the economic scales too much, these sex robots will likely become abnormally economically dependent on their patrons. You thought your ex girlfriend was quite the stalker but picture her with Terminator powers and a programmer level desire for sex. Alaska Bush living making more sense all the time.

Steven Michael Seys said...

If this ban goes through, you can be certain that the MGTOW and InCel community will find a new city while the new wave FemiNazis flock to town. That ought to change the demographic sufficiently to change all the faces in city council.

Replicant said...

So, would opposition to a ban on such businesses be a sex-bot cock-block cop block?

Seriously though, and a little off-topic: I saw in the Chronicle that the human trafficking/child sex trafficking hysteria (CSTH) crowd has joined the fray, with one guy from some 'advocacy' group worrying about what this will "lead to." Inevitably, when any new sexually-oriented business activity is proposed, the public discussion leads to fear that it will promote exploitation of women and children.

I think much the activity of child-sex-trafficking-hysteria crowd is counterproductive. They show up, stage some sort of conference, produce some dubious statistics from questionable sources, and get local leaders believing that there are busloads of little freckle-faced girls from the Midwest being trafficked into their city every day and sold into prostitution. I am on one of the supposed major corridors for this activity and in my line of work, I would almost certainly come in contact with many of the victims, if this were widespread. I don't see it. I'm not saying it doesn't occur, and it is certainly abhorrent, but I think the nature of the problem is very different from how these people present it. The problem is that they work local leaders up into a froth, thinking they have to "do something" about it, and send law enforcement resources down unproductive rabbit trails instead of supporting much more effective ways of protecting minors and marginalized persons from abuse and exploitation.

Anonymous said...

Well, we know you can commit at least seven felonies involving oysters...

Anonymous said...

Replicant , I have wondered about so many '' made for TV'' type crimes we hear about.. as I live in the community as do we all, and have never seen nor had first hand knowledge of much of what I hear or read about. Which would indicate that maybe some of this is blown way out the reality of what really is.. or I lead a boring life.. also a possibility.
Which enables me a lot of time on my hands to find solutions to these problems.

Obviously we should name these robots and their clientele, and place them all on the sexual registry list. Add on to the current list of places these offenders cannot live near to include all malls. As we KNOW that all the kids hang out at the malls, especially on days they skip school so they are more likely at risk in the mall, then on the school grounds.
Problem solved.

Anonymous said...

I'm just going to leave this here...


Shelly Swank said...

Well, it's because the robot can't consent. 😉