Move to make ‘sexbots’ illegal in Canada
From Sex-Dolls to Sexbots: An Analysis of Current Canadian Obscenity Laws and
Future Directions
Apart from serving the obvious and (private) traditional purpose of procreation, human sexuality has been an increasingfocus of popular culture with sexualized images appearing in magazines, television, film/pornography, and music.Sexuality, like gender, is a social construct, whereby sexual roles are prescribed to both men and women. Women are (and have been) the primary focus of sexual exploitation in Western culture and this stems from lingering ancient patriarchal views on women’s position within society. Women were, at one point, excluded as legal persons [1], denied the right to vote, and even excluded from universities [2]. Women have historically been regarded, and I argue continue to be (though not as blatantly) as biologically utilitarian to the expansion of the human race. This means that women are socially defined by their sexuality and as such nearly every aspect of a woman’s sexuality has been pathologized, from menstruation to menopause—after all, there is no such thing as a gynecologist for men.
Pornography is one of the primary arenas that furthers the male-female sexualized gender stereotypes; what society generates quietly in the home and the workplace pornography proliferates in an obscene exaggerated manner. The current technology craze is capitalizing on the socially constructed sexualized female with the manufacturing of (primitive) blow up pornographic sex dolls selling for under $100 [3] and (advanced) realistic silicone dolls, made-to-order by the customer’s specifications, which cost anywhere from $6000 to $10 000 [4]. David Levy has even suggested that “robot sex will become the only sexual outlet for a few sectors of the population…and that for some other sectors of the population robot sex will vary between something to be indulged in occasionally…to an activity that supplements one’s regular sex life…it would be natural to expect that many more men than women will be enthusiastic about the idea of robot sex and more likely to become customers when sexual robots are on the markets” (emphasis in original) [5]. The very real possibility of sexbots a la Levy poses serious concerns for Canadian obscenity laws [6] with respect to gender equality as protected in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [7] such that additions and expansions to the Criminal Code will be necessary.
I propose that the current sale of pornographic sex dolls and silicone Real Dolls [8] in Canada could be prosecuted under s. 163(2) (a) of the Criminal Code [9]. This provision reads, “Every one commits an offense who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse, (a) sells, exposes to public view or has in his possession for such a purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever; The Code defines obscene publication in s. 163(8) as “any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex or of sex and any or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence; [10]. Given Levy’s view that;a robot could be set to cater to every encounter, to the user’s sexual tastes; [11] there is tremendous opportunity for the symbolic “undue exploitation of sex” with female sexbots, which would serve to undermine the integrity of women, who have historically been characterized by subordination [12]. For this reason I propose to expand s. 163(8) to include chattels and define obscene publications as follows,;any publication or chattel a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex; This would then encompass robots whose primary characteristics will be manufactured to address, according to Levy; sexual imbalance in the sense of desired frequency; [13], making thedistribution of sexbots prosecutable under s. 163(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. Laws prohibiting the corruption of children in the Criminal Code [14] also need to be expanded to include a provision that reads; Every one who, in the home of a child participates in sexual activity with a robot in front of the child or engages the child in that sexual activity in any manner is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; A provision protecting children is particularly important since they are vulnerable to male-centered sexual propaganda and must not be instilled with immoral sexual values surrounding the symbolic (mis)treatment of women through the use and possession of sexbots. Certainly these laws may come under a section 2(b) Charter challenge for freedom of expression, however this analysis is outside the scope of this paper.
Sexbots a la Stepford Wives are a mere computer chip away from Real Dolls. Therefore, it seems a woman’s inability or unwillingness to comply with a man’s sexual needs or demands can be overcome with technology. Black and Wishart criticize Levys views on the normalcy of sexbots by noting that “female sexual submission is held forth as a marketable quality, offering for sale the pleasures of sex with women without the inconvenience posed by the necessity for consent” [15]. This fantasy without consequence is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of sex dolls and sexbots as touted by Levy, who bases his firm belief for the need for sexbots in the reality that women may have decreased energy levels after child birth or from their jobs [16]. Black and Wishart term sexbots as virtual rape action figures, lacking willpower [17] and making it clear that a woman’s free will is a barrier to the ultimate sexual pleasure. Therefore the manufacturing of sexbots will perpetuate sexist stereotypes through the modeling of robots on heterosexual pornography, which may include the programming of robots as women who appear to take pleasure from subordination, humiliation and pain at the hands of male sexual partners [18].
Laws that regulate and ultimately permit the possession and distribution of sexbots will undoubtedly be challenged.
iankerr.ca
http://iankerr.ca Powered by Joomla! Generated: 25 November, 2009, 03:03
under s. 15 of the Charter. The purpose of s. 15 is to “promote a society in which all are secure in the knowledge that they are recognized at law as human beings equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration” [19]. I propose that according to the Law [20] test, laws which enable people to possess and distribute sexbots will result in indirect discrimination, thereby failing to take into account the pre-existing disadvantages experienced by women. This, in turn, will exhibit differential treatment of women on the enumerated ground of sex and will have a substantively discriminatory effect in the sense that the differential treatment will impose a burden upon or will deny a benefit to women in a manner which (i) reflects demeaning, discrediting or prejudicial gender stereotypes; or (ii) perpetuates or promotes the view that women are less capable or worthy of recognition or value as a human beings or members of Canadian society equally deserving of concern, respect and consideration. A section one analysis is outside the scope of this paper but would undoubtedly fail since the objectives of regulating sexbot possession and distribution would not be deemed so important as to warrant overriding the right of equality [22].
[1] Susanna Paasonen, “Best Wives Are Artefacts? Popular Cybernetics and Robot Women in the 1970s”
in Anu Koivunen and Susanna Paasonen (eds.) (Conference proceedings for affective encounters: rethinking
embodiment in feminist media studies, University of Turku, School of Art, Literature and Music, Series A, No. 49 2001) at
196.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_science
[3]http://www.adameve.com/sextoys/toys_love-dolls-c-1005.aspx?sc=SEMGLSEX&cm_mmc=GGL-_-Sex%20Toys-_-
Dolls-_-love%20dolls&gclid=CLruotTf2pkCFSMgDQodQA8NVg
[4] http://www.realdoll.com/cgi-bin/snav.rd
[5] David Levy, Love and Sex with Robots (New York: Harper Collins, 2007) at 291, 296.
[6] Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 163.
[7] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act
1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11, s. 15.
[8] Supra note 4.
[9] Supra note 6 at s. 163(2)(a).
[10] Supra note 6 at s. 163(8).
[11] Supra note 5 at 293.
[12] Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women (New York: Perigee Trade. 1981).
[13] Supra note 5 at 295.
[14] Supra note 6 at s. 172.
[15] K. Black & J. Wishart R. v. Butler and the Roboticization of Obscenity: A case fore applying the Butler theory of harm
to the rise of sexbots (2009) [unpublished, see Jane Bailey’s Cyberfeminism course] at 10.
[16] Supra note 5 at 294.
[17] Supra note 15 at 24.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497 [Law].
[20] Ibid. at 39.
[21] Ibid.
[22] R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103.
iankerr.ca
By Ian Kerr, Canada Research Chair in Ethics, Law and Technology at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law.
mm
