The "no underage fembots" issue... again

droidlvr · Post by **droidlvr** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:59 pm

Woa! watch it there!! You might get scolded for this link.
Oh wait a minute,you're fection,not droidlvr a lower ranking member.

fection · Post by **fection** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:14 pm

Droidlvr, I've had a you tube link pulled before (wait, that makes it sound like I post dodgy links all the time!) so I don't get away with stuff, if that's what you're implying. It's the moderators' call and I'm happy to go along with that.
Anyway - back to the vids...

rabiator · Post by **rabiator** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:17 pm

droidlvr wrote:Woa! watch it there!! You might get scolded for this link.
Oh wait a minute,you're fection,not droidlvr a lower ranking member.

Hey, it's a Disney show. The epitome of harmless, kiddie-safe entertainment. Who could find something naughty there?

droidlvr · Post by **droidlvr** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:15 pm

Hey, it's a Disney show. The epitome of harmless, kiddie-safe entertainment. Who could find something naughty there?

While you're obviously kidding,maybe the others here can tell ya what I'm
talkin' about.

jolshefsky · Post by **jolshefsky** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:44 am

Robotman wrote:We have a simple rule here at FC: no underage fembots allowed. I don't know how that gets misunderstood.

I'm not an expert, but isn't Kim Possible supposed to be in high-school? And if so, wouldn't robotic cheerleaders necessarily also be "high-school age"?

And anyway, your rule is weak as it's not the chronological age of a fembot but its subjectively determined physical appearance. If you insist on keeping the rule, I would suggest using (a) the apparent age in the context of the source (i.e. Kim Possible's age) or if that isn't available, (b) the age of the actor playing the role, or if that isn't possible, then only allow (c) adults whose apparent physical age is over 25 (because it's often hard to discern age between a mature 17-year-old and a young-looking 22-year-old.)

As such, I think Astro-Boy's female counterpart is out, for instance – for physically appearing prepubescent. We can also call into question Katie Barberi's character in Not Quite Human II.

andoroido · Post by **andoroido** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 9:03 am

Maybe those who run this place are feeling too polite to be blunt.
Or just too bored about repeating this stuff.

I can be blunt.

Anything that even smells of "child" in connection with this ASFR,
where "S" stands for "Sex" can possibly yield investigation, and prosecution of the individuals who so kindly keep this site running.
American law is particularly harsh on this area.

Ruin your life, go to jail type stuff.

GET IT??!?!?!?

If you want unregulated underage bot action, I suggest you whining pussies start up a site in Japan, where such things are so unashamedly public, it makes me want to puke.

So, fuck off.

It'd be pretty sad if the site-runners decided they had to vet every single link posted here, might even just discourage them from keeping the site up at all if so much extra effort were needed.

But it would be easier to just start a rule banning membership for people posting underage stuff. Make people think twice before posting and possibly ruining this site for everyone.

Meanwhile, there is this thing called the "Internet" which you can use to "search" for "information" such as the ages of actresses and production dates of programs. Give it a try on any suspect material. (Just checked and Stepford Mary (Tammy Lauren) was 19 when Stepford Children went on air, safe, but are there any other classic scenes that warrant investigation?)

Did I mention "fuck off"?

jolshefsky · Post by **jolshefsky** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:23 pm

Kishin wrote:But since we can't ever be sure of which are and are not underage, we call them like we see them. And if we see them as kids, you damn well bet that we'll cut them in the blink of an eye.

As of this post the Kim Possible link is still up. I think it's too close to the razor's edge to keep.

WilloWisp · Post by **WilloWisp** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 6:35 pm

I'm confused about something: The robots depicted in the Kim Possible episode in question are not replicas of the Kim or any of the other main characters. They are metallic skinned, and can't really be said to depict any specific age. However, within the story universe presented, they were created by a college-aged Drakken.

In physical appearance, they are metal skinned female robots of indeterminate age. In behavior, they are Scandinavian totalitarians, referring to Kim and others as "children." It's quite a big stretch to claim that they are in any way meant to be preteen-robots.

Why is this episode being considered taboo for discussion? Is it because it occurs in a preteeen-aimed show with lots of preteen characters, even though the object of discussion is not a preteen character?

DJDojo · Post by **DJDojo** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 7:14 pm

Guys, guys, can ya'all calm down for a minute?

*Pause* Thank you.

Seriously, "Kim Possible" doesn't qualify as underage material in my book, but something with a "little girl" or "boy" 'bot does, and getting a high off of stuff like that's just plain wrong.

I'm sorry, but there's a limit to what's considered "sexy" and what's perverted...

Steamboy · Post by **Steamboy** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:38 am

I was wondering why I was unable to reply to this thread, but anyways, underage fembots is a whole different topic that can't be discussed here.
Posting videos, images or stories has the purpose of turning us on (at least I think so), and, obviusly, its a taboo to be turned on by a minor. (At least for you

BTW, anyone ever has thought that underage-looking fembots will be a reality when the proper technology exists?

xodar · Post by **xodar** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 12:36 pm

Dr. Amens wrote:I was wondering why I was unable to reply to this thread, but anyways, underage fembots is a whole different topic that can't be discussed here.
Posting videos, images or stories has the purpose of turning us on (at least I think so), and, obviusly, its a taboo to be turned on by a minor. (At least for you

BTW, anyone ever has thought that underage-looking fembots will be a reality when the proper technology exists?

Yes, they will be.
They will cause much legal trouble and persons with adult bots will be smeared as pedophiles by feminists. We'll see news items about "child bot porn" and even "child bot rapists".
Just as renting your out will cause you to be called a pimp.
All men with fembots will for a long time be considered suspicious, at least by some influential elements including religious leaders. however normal their preferences.

fection · Post by **fection** » Wed Jan 09, 2008 1:20 pm

Dr Amens.... paedophilia is not just 'taboo' as you rather flippantly put it - it is wrong because it lacks the cognitive consent of the child (And here, I refer to real life humans. Personally I do not think it wise to continue the current tangent of discussion, precisely because of the valid points just made by Xodar - some might see that as bowing to extremists. I see that as prudent).
The youtube post that sparked this tediously recurrent discussion has been used obliquely as an argument for under-age material appearing here. If that happens, I for one will leave, simple as that.