[ExI] Humour (was: Re: thinking about the unthinkable)

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 31/08/2026 17:41, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Let us take as the subject a 40-year-old woman - heterosexual, horny,
> unmarried with no serious prospects in her social circles, and
> unwilling or unable to find good partners on dating apps (most likely:
> unable due to the dating apps she finds all offering poor quality
> prospective mates).  She gains the ability to, with the push of a
> button, create Boltzmann-style a nubile, physical equivalent of 19
> year old, man in her shower, willing and eager to please her.  This
> man completely disappears (instantly and - at least for him -
> painlessly) on his own an hour or two later without her taking action
> to dismiss him (or, for sake of simplicity, having been practically
> able to take action to sustain him).  This includes any secretions he
> may make, so there is no chance of her becoming pregnant from this
> encounter.
>
> I say "physical equivalent of" because, chronologically, she just
> created this entity: he is mere seconds old.  Legally, that makes sex
> with him statutory rape in most jurisdictions I am aware of the laws
> of, but those laws assume that the only way to become the physical
> equivalent of 19 years old is to actually live those 19 years.
>
> Assuming she has her way with him during his brief existence, in which
> specific ways is this ethically objectionable?  Does that answer
> change if his mind was, prior to physical incarnation, that of a
> disembodied AI boyfriend that was generated within the prior few
> months, and goes back to being that form afterward?  Does that answer
> change if, instead of Boltzmann-style instant fabrication, the body
> was instead fabricated by that same AI for a brief physical encounter
> at the woman's request?

The answer changes depending on the world-view of the person answering. I'm sure you can anticipate that a conservative, christian, and elderly person would have a different answer than a liberal, secular, young person, or a left-wing millennial, or a muslim, or a member of the chinese communist party, etc., etc.
There is no one answer.

If you're asking us, then I personally would say I can't see anything fundamentally ethically objectionable, but it would depend on what the subject thinks about the whole thing. If he/she said "No! that's a horrible thing to do to me!" then I'd have to say that it's unethical. Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it.

> Obviously, the answer should not change if the sexes are reversed (or
> if both parties are the same sex and homosexual, or in any other
> mutually compatible combination of sexes and orientations), although
> quite a few people will give different answers if they initially
> encounter the hypothetical as a man creating the physical equivalent
> of a 19 year old woman.

Obviously it should not. Just as obviously, it would. People are hypocrites, people rationalise their hypocracy as being 'social justice' or some such thing. For some people, it's obvious that these are totally different scenarios, and perhaps that  as a matter of principle, a man should never be in a position of power over a woman, but not the reverse. For others, it's obvious that that is a nonsensical and hypocritical view.

There are no single or simple answers to these questions, just individual opinions, and you know what they say about opinions (they're like arseholes, everybody has one).
-- 
Ben