To the editor:
As both a constitutional and criminal defense lawyer for people charged with prostitution-related offenses, I applaud Professor Rob Brooks' support for future purchasers of artificially intelligent sex robots. He properly criticizes the religious right and the anti-porn left for their opposition to these soon-to-be mechanized intimate companions.
Brooks refers to society's "typical censoriousness about sex." All ideological extremes want to prohibit people from living differently from that belief system's dictates. If our neighbors are not objectively harming us, we have no right to forcibly restrict their personal choices in order to compel obedience to what is ultimately our own subjective code of conduct.
If someone chooses to privately interact with a robot that provides sexual gratification, any ideology underlying an attempt to deprive anyone of the legal right to seek such pleasure is a totalitarian threat to our freedoms.
Edward Tabash, Los Angeles
To the editor:
Brooks refers to society's "typical censoriousness about sex." All ideological extremes want to prohibit people from living differently from that belief system's dictates. If our neighbors are not objectively harming us, we have no right to forcibly restrict their personal choices in order to compel obedience to what is ultimately our own subjective code of conduct.
If someone chooses to privately interact with a robot that provides sexual gratification, any ideology underlying an attempt to deprive anyone of the legal right to seek such pleasure is a totalitarian threat to our freedoms.
Edward Tabash, Los Angeles
To the editor:
What was most unsettling about Brooks' op-ed article on the coming culture war over advanced sex robots and intimacy in virtual reality was how distantly cool and rational it was.
A big part of intimacy to me is working through things I may not agree on with my partner. Equally it has to do with my partner and I standing beside each other through heartache, pain and loss. From this springs trust, affection and desire.
What electronic formula could possibly contrive the infinite complexity of feeling devastated by losing a loved one? What satisfaction would there be in a relationship devoid of the possibility that eventually, it might not all work out, but for your faith and effort?
The very fragile tenuousness of relationships is part of what makes relationships precious and sacred. No AI creation will ever substitute for this.
Eric Searcy, Los Angeles
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
A big part of intimacy to me is working through things I may not agree on with my partner. Equally it has to do with my partner and I standing beside each other through heartache, pain and loss. From this springs trust, affection and desire.
What electronic formula could possibly contrive the infinite complexity of feeling devastated by losing a loved one? What satisfaction would there be in a relationship devoid of the possibility that eventually, it might not all work out, but for your faith and effort?
The very fragile tenuousness of relationships is part of what makes relationships precious and sacred. No AI creation will ever substitute for this.
Eric Searcy, Los Angeles
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment