Rise of the Sex Robots

So, they want to ban the sale of sex robots made to look like children.  Damn it, do you think we can just have the sex robots, before they start placing restrictions on them?  I know that there are already robotic sex machines out there, shaped like women and capable of having 'sex' with men (they are invariably and depressingly female), but currently they are so expensive that they are only available to millionaire (and heterosexual) pervs in order for them to fulfill their rape fantasies without fear of legal action.  From the point of view of such people, the advent of the sex robot is a Godsend - just imagine: no need to employ shady private eyes and security firms to dispose of those dead hookers, no lawsuits, no potential for blackmail.  But should they only be available to the world's twelve richest would be rapists?  Surely they would of greater benefit to the masses of average men who, far from wanting to legally enact their violent fantasies, are simply too shy, too lacking in self confidence or plain too ugly, to be able to comfortably interact with real women?  Why should they have to settle for the old five knuckle shuffle or, at best, one of those plastic inflatable sex dolls?  OK, I know, these sex robots are actually nothing more than just a more sophisticated version of those dolls and, ultimately, represent the ultimate in assisted masturbation.  But what the heck, aren't the little guys entitled to a bit of luxury in the wanking department now and again?

To get back to the original point, presupposing that these sex aids become more commonplace, to what extent should there be restrictions placed upon their form?  I can understand why many would be uncomfortable with the idea of sex robots shaped like children, but ask yourself: wouldn't it be better if peadophiles were able to expend their sexual proclivities on machines rather than real children?  Perhaps thre could be a compromise: only registered peados could have access to such sex robots on the NHS, as part of their therapy?  I mean, it's either that or they have to keep using the dwarves and midgets dressed as kiddies.  But should we stop at just banning sex bots shaped like children?  What about animals?  Because you just know it is going to happen - mechanical goats, pigs, sheep, horses, probably even dolphins, for all the family to fuck.  But again, we have to ask, wouldn't some sicko into bestiality shagging a robot sheep be infinitely preferable to them going out to some field in dead of night and doing it to the real thing?  I'm sure that animal rights campaigners, farmers and sheep would agree.  But let's not stop there - shouldn't we place restrictions on exactly who adult female sex robots look like?

Surely there would have to be some stipulation that they couldn't be modeled on any real person, living or dead.  (I add the 'dead' bit because, conceivably, it would be possible to commit a form of necrophilia by proxy using a sex robot which looked like a deceased woman).   Not only could celebrity obsessed stalkers fuel their potentially dangerous fantasies by using sex robots resembling whichever female star happened to be the object of their delusions, but regular perverts and stalkers could, conceivably, obtain sex bots looking like that pretty female neighbour they watch through binoculars whenever she takes a bath.  Worse still, they could get a sex robot that looks like that girl at work who rejected their advances and use it to fuel their revenge fantasies.  Or they could have a sex robot that looks like that wife or girl friend who left them, but over whom they still obsess.  Quite apart from the fact that this sort of thing is, at best, simply creepy and, at worst, potentially dangerous deviant behaviour, surely it would also constitute a gross invasion of the privacy of the women concerned?  Shouldn't they have some control over their own image and how it is used?  It's all very perplexing.  Perhaps, in order to avoid all these complications, we should just stick to having one off the wrist.