Categories
creepy I'm totally being sarcastic sex sexy robot ladies Uncategorized

>Roxxxy and the Sexbotapocalypse

>

Roxxxy puts the moves on some dude.

In a recent post, we learned that flesh-and-blood women only have about ten years left before they are made obsolete by sexy lady robots. Just so you ladies know what you’re up against, here are some videos showing what state-of-the art sexy lady robots can do already. As you can see, Roxxxy here, a sexbot from True Companion LLC, can turn her head like Linda Blair in the Exorcist and mechanically banter with non-robot men using a variety of canned phrases that sound a lot like what a perpetually dateless non-robot man might imagine a sexy lady would say if ever one deigned to speak to him. And, as you can see in the second video, she can wiggle seductively. So you non-robotic gals better step up your game, and fast, if you want to survive the sexbotapocalypse.

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Wow, that is so life like. I do not know how us women will compete.Does it also spew pea soup barf?

Joe
Joe
9 years ago

>What are sex-starved dweebs going to do, though, when the sexbots emasculate them by beating them at Jeopardy?http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/14/ibm_watson_jeopardy_dry_run/

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>So you non-robotic gals better step up your game, and fast, if you want to survive the sexbotapocalypse.If that truly WAS every man's idea of what a true companion should be, rather than stepping up my game, I'd prefer NOT to survive the sexbotapocalypse.

magdelyn
9 years ago

>Roxxxy looks like a tranny.

booboonation
9 years ago

>I don't even want to click on those videos.

The Biscuit Queen
9 years ago

>I see this as a way for men who either can't attract a woman or is choosing to stay away from women to satisfy their physical needs without the use of prostitution. I would think feminists would love this. It basically is the equivilant of a giant vibrator, and I know most feminists feel such equiptment empowers women so they do not need a man. Is it bad for men to have the same thing?

bct
bct
9 years ago

>It basically is the equivilant of a giant vibratorIt's different from a vibrator in two ways:1. the robot itself is really creepy.2. the fact that it's being sold as a companion (something you can have a relationship with) is really creepy.

kysokisaen
9 years ago

>Remember when Real Dolls were announced and we all thought that was kind of creepy? And how now we know better? Actually it's all kind of creepy, and if Biscuit Queen has any problems with that, she should know that plenty of commenters at feminist-themed blogs will rain the same kind of judgment down upon women who buy those realistic looking baby dolls. The baby dolls are probably a better comparison to this than vibrators, since most women don't project their need for companionship on their vibrators. Mine doesn't even have a name:)

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Here is a thought for the men thinking about going to get one of these lovelies…what if it malfunctions during sex?

DesertRose
9 years ago

>"I would think feminists would love this."I do actually. I find it hilarious.

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>Hey, it'll help cut back on human trafficking, right? Should make booboonation happy.

booboonation
9 years ago

>Dr. Deeze, hey these guys aren't the kind of guys exploiting people on the whole. (…right…?)Different market… please tell me it's a different market…That would be great though if fembots could replace the exploited women and children. That would be wonderful. And don't think they wouldn't make little girl and boy bots and baby bots for these MEN if this were the case. It's amazing how many men like to rape children. It's pretty astounding. Now I'm sad again.

Katz
9 years ago

>Dr. Deezee: I don't think these sexbots will really cut down on human trafficking; dolls/sexbots are costly; you can rent a human body for much less cash.Also, sadly enough, there are some men who enjoy causing pain and humiliation to women or children during sexual acts. Sexbots would not satisfy these men.

Raul Groom
9 years ago

>I can't handle this at all. Is there a widget that could filter out the robogina posts for me?

D
D
9 years ago

>Comparing it to those baby dolls is a very good comparision. I do remember reading posts on mra boards mocking the childless women that buy them, Hopefully the mra responding to this blog will see the comparision, and understand that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.I have no problem with these "perfect companions" because I do understand that they will be used by a small subset of men who have no choice in the matter because of poor social skills. But much like the real baby dolls the reality is normal people have a hard time not making fun of people like that! Interesting though that they are compared to vibrators, this is not a comparison. Vibrators can be compared to pocket pussies, when viabrators start talking back and are sold as companions then you can compare. I do wonder though being that mra like to say that feminists are lonely and can't get a man, why a male version hasn't been put out?

switchintoglide
9 years ago

>@ magdelyn"Tranny" is a really awful slur, and there is nothing inherently grotesque or wrong with transgender individuals, transsexuals, intersex peoples, or genderqueer individuals. Don't drag a whole group of people–who have nothing to do with this issue–through the mud.http://thegenderblenderblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/tranny-is-a-form-of-hate-speech/

switchintoglide
9 years ago

>I just looked at your profile, and it looks as though you self-identify that way. I apologise for being abrupt–obviously it is fine if you self-identify as a tranny, but a lot of people are really hurt and marginalised by that word if it is not the one they choose for themselves. Also, the media tend to use that word as a slur–a way of diminishing trans/z peoples' lives and experiences. I get that it can be reclaimed, the way of 'queer' and 'faggot,' but it still burns the eyes a little.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091220003950AABM7Ik

nicko81m
9 years ago

>I think only a very small minority of the whole male population of the whole world would be interested in getting one of these things. I am not sure if David is sort of making this as a MRA thing or just attempting to bash and intimidate men in general as that's the typical feminist way.

nicko81m
9 years ago

>Or it could be that David knows that it's getting tiring to show random comments from random people in mra sites that are mostly just shock jocks (mostly not serious people who are serious about men's rights) looking for offensive humour anyway. So he has resorted to this piece

magdelyn
9 years ago

>@switchintoglideSorry switch. Don't mean to offend. Just trying to be funny. I know it is a slur to many, although I personally don't mind if someone calls me a tranny.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>nick, this post is a followup to one in which I quoted a guy who is convinced sexbots will make women obsolete, a position that is 1) ludicrous, 2) insulting to women and 3)but so ludicrous that it's really not actually insulting to women, but a reason to mock the guy putting forth that argument. And as some people have pointed out, the (creepy) guys behind this sexbot envision her not just as a sex toy but as a "companion." Which is, again, a bit creepy. As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism. They are a minority, but they're out there, and a version of this argument was made in The Misandry Bubble, a stupid but very influential and widely cited MRA/MGTOW manifesto. So I'm not making up an MRA connection. It's there, and was there long before I even thought of this blog.

magdelyn
9 years ago

>I want a fembot. There was a tranz girl who wanted to hypnotize me into become a human fembot. I will go see if I can find the emails. They were pretty hilarious.

magdelyn
9 years ago

>Here is one of the emails this girlio sent me. She called herself PlasticDoll. She was tranz, and very cute. 8/24/09: "…that pic of you on the street corner. It would be unfortunate if I mesmerized you while walking past have you follow me only to become my robot…"

magdelyn
9 years ago

>Just for the sake of equality, they do have a man version.

magdelyn
9 years ago

>It's just a vision I have, David. Maybe, one day, we and my fembot army will come to satiate the masses.

LexieDi
9 years ago

>Dr. Deezee: Wouldn't cutting back on human trafficking make everyone happy? I would hope so.

LexieDi
9 years ago

>Also, Roxxxy is SO interesting! I mean she likes everything you like! Wow… Now you don't have to be bothered with stimulating conversation!

haloinshreds
9 years ago

>Another use for sex dolls…. Riding the floodwaters (an open gender event it seems)http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/river-rescue-as-sex-toy-ditches-rider-20110117-19sra.html

kysokisaen
9 years ago

>Wow, Avpd0. It's not often you see a fantasy vision of the future that uses the phrase "more first date anal." I also found the phrase "too poor to afford real women" kind of revealing. Of course, as everywhere on the internet, the comments are even crazier. I especially like the guy who claims "The matriarchy already restricts/regulates male sexuality through IMBRA and various other outlets." IMBRA. We're restricting his sexuality by allowing women he met through a bridal agency to have access to the results of his background check and some information about her rights written in a language she can understand. And apparently it's not even that good of a background check. Or maybe he doesn't like that IMBRA limits you to two fiance visas? It make the return policy more of a hassle, that's for sure.

avpd0nmmng
9 years ago

>To kysokisaen:Many MRAs are closeted gay, Jack Donovan, who wrote for the Spearhead is a gay activist. Many PUAs are closeted gay, they become PUAs to prove to themselves and the others they are not gay. Many people think that Citizen Renegade (Roissy) is a closeted gay. That probably explain the phrase "more first date anal."Most MRAs/PUAs are low-status or very poor and they want women out of their leagues. That's why they go to third world countries. That explain the phrase "too poor to afford real women".

greenthumbed
9 years ago

>Oh gee, i wonder what game will be like with sex robots. evenharder for lesbians to pick up on them since they were built by men i suppose.like will men be saying things like 'hey baby wanna come back to my place, i got some really big batteries'this looks the the dawn of a hole new era for men and lesbians.

The Biscuit Queen
9 years ago

>I don't know, if women had to vie for sex like men do, they life size man dolls would be in much higher demand. I do not see an issue with this and I fail to see how it is misogynistic to figure out how to get one's needs met when the other gender is making it so costly.

Kratch
9 years ago

>D: “I do wonder though being that mra like to say that feminists are lonely and can't get a man, why a male version hasn't been put out?”http://www.realdoll.com/cgi-bin/snav.rd?action=viewpage&section=mrealdoll2David: “nick, this post is a followup to one in which I quoted a guy who is convinced sexbots will make women obsolete, a position that is 1) ludicrous, 2) insulting to women and 3)but so ludicrous that it's really not actually insulting to women, but a reason to mock the guy putting forth that argument. “So, one person said this, and you’ve equated it to the entire MRA? I can’t seem to find a single MRA justifying or supporting this idea in ether of your two articles. I do see many feminists discussing how the fact MRA’s (IE, more then the one you quoted?) are disturbing and creepy for wanting this, and how it’s far more likely women could do without men then the other way around.David: “As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism.”And feminists have been saying the same thing of men for a long time (IE: women need men like a fish needs a bicycle). Difference is, for some reason, science has been funding methods to make feminists dreams come true (cloning, making sperm of bone marrow, etc)… Which view do you find more dangerous, the fringe crazies advocating robot lovers or the funded, scientific replacement of men?David: “a version of this argument was made in The Misandry Bubble, a stupid but very influential and widely cited MRA/MGTOW manifesto.”That wouldn’t be anything like The SCUM Manifesto, would it?David: “It's there, and was there long before I even thought of this blog.”Then it’s fair to say that hatred towards men is an integral part of feminism based on the relation to the SCUM Manifesto? And just to note, that was published (not just an internet blog) back in 1968 and made into a movie in 1976, suggesting she was far more then a fringe member of feminism.Avpd0: “Many MRAs are closeted gay”You make a lot of judgements about “most” MRA’s based on only a handful of comments. Yes, so MRA’s are gay, several are openly gay in fact. Does that make them any less men, or any less deserving of a voice (based on your attitude, as well as N.O.W.’s complete inaction when the nations of the U.N. voted to remove sexual orientation from a resolution condemning summary and arbitrary executions, it would appear the feminists believe yes, they are less deserving of a voice.)?Avpd0: “Many MRAs are fascinated by sexbots “ and “Most MRAs/PUAs are low-status or very poor and they want women out of their leagues. “Are you this judgmental about everyone, or just people you don’t like? In two posts you have managed to define what most MRA’s are three time, based solely on … what, three people?

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>kratch, clearly you don't read before you post, but if you read my post and my comment above you will see that I very explicitly don't equate sexbots-will-destroy-feminism MRAs with all MRAs.Hint: pay special attention to this phrase in my comment: "They are a minority, but they're out there"

Kratch
9 years ago

>"kratch, clearly you don't read before you post, but if you read my post and my comment above you will see that I very explicitly don't equate sexbots-will-destroy-feminism MRAs with all MRAs."You don't differentiate the two, instead, you clearly spelled out "a connection to MRA"s"."As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism."As this is in direct response to nick's comment:"I am not sure if David is sort of making this as a MRA thing or just attempting to bash and intimidate men in general as that's the typical feminist way."then it stands to reason, given your directly making the connection, that you are making it an MRA Thing."Hint: pay special attention to this phrase in my comment: "They are a minority, but they're out there""If it is just a minority (I think even this is overstating things considerably), then that does not produce an MRA connection, any more then there is a connection between being an MRA/feminist and being homosexual, simply because a minority of MRA's/Feminists also happen to be gay/lesbian.I'm curious, do you always assume first and foremost that people can't read before you post a reply? Is that the default setting for you? IE, If someone doesn't agree with you, then they are somehow mentally challenged?

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>I don't assume people can't read. I assume (when someone completely misses the point and attributes things to me that I haven't said) that they've probably just skimmed what I wrote instead of actually reading it. Nick is the one who brought up MRAs. I responded by noting, correctly, that some MRAs do in fact think that sexbots will destroy feminism. This does not mean that all MRAs think this, or that it is necessary to think this in order to be an MRA. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying, but it is really no more complicated than: some MRAs, a minority of them, think that sexbots will destroy feminism. If you were to say, some feminists are lesbians, I would have to say, yes, some are.

Kratch
9 years ago

>"Nick is the one who brought up MRAs. I responded by noting, correctly, that some MRAs do in fact think that sexbots will destroy feminism. "Nick asked a question as to whether you were trying to attribute this to MRA's. Your response was to spell out the connection. Claim all you want that you aren't responsible, that someone else is to blame, and then look down and try and discredit or shame whoever attempts to hold you accountable. That is what "some" feminists do best, is it not?

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Kratch, I really have no idea what you are on about. Everything I have said has been completely straightforward here: Some, not all, MRAs, have convinced themselves that sexbots will destroy feminism. That's what I said above, and that's what I say now.

Kratch
9 years ago

>And how does that answer nick's question… "Are you trying to attribute this as an MRA thing?", Other then to say "yes, it is an MRA thing because some (not all) MRA's believe it to be the case"… but this answer still makes it an MRA thing when it isn't. MRA's, in large part, don't believe this any more then I suspect "most" Feminists don't believe consensual sex is rape (Do you consider yourself a rapist David? or perhaps your celibate so as not to be one?). If the answer to nicks question was no, then there would be no need to mention MRA's at all, let alone spell out a direct connection.Now, if you decided to instead, quote him and then answer a completely different question, then perhaps you should stop accusing others of not being able to read. hmm?

avpd0nmmng
9 years ago

>To Kratch:Jack Donovan made a posting on the Spearhead defending male-on-male sexual harassment and some posters approved him.http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/22/male-on-male-sexual-harassment/

John Dias
9 years ago

>@David Futrelle:"Some, not all, MRAs, have convinced themselves that sexbots will destroy feminism."The primary emotional reason behind the rise of feminism in the 19th century was the feeling that big industry had commoditized the contributions of women. If the nurturing qualities of women could be purchased rather than being the sole domain of a woman in her home, then commerce and technology were rendering women to be irrelevant. They could go to work in a factory, and be reduced in value to that of a lemming, because their former role could now be outsourced. More than 100 years later, feminism had morphed into a left wing entitlement movement based on the myth that it was men — not industrialization — that robbed women of their identity. Women bought that myth, and increasingly entered the workforce under the assumption that this was liberating to them, never realizing that the original emotional appeal of feminism was to fight the commoditization of women and preserve their distinctiveness, so that women could be appreciated for the unique nurturing role that they played.After three waves of feminism, and various triumphant feminist screeds, men are now feeling unappreciated and they too are now made to feel that they have no unique or distinct value to offer society. Technology and industry have rendered men — like the women over a century ago — to feel irrelevant.So it's no surprise that some men — the ones mentioned in David's post here, rare as they are — are looking to sexbots as a solution. They think that if they can be made to feel rejected and irrelevant, well then, they will use technology to reject women too. It's a "fighting fire with fire" mentality, but it won't end well. Loss of gender identity is the problem (although today, feminists seem to think that it is the solution). The true solution is for women to rediscover their nurturing qualities, for men to rediscover what makes them truly unique and valuable to society — such as their ability to build and take risks, and for both sexes to kick feminism to the curb.

D
D
9 years ago

>John Dias,The industrial revolution started in England, but it played out in sweatshops in Ireland.These places hired women and children exclusively, they did not hire men because the government wanted a breakdown of Irish families. If you don’t know about the conditions these women and children faced I suggest that you read Leon Uris for a start.

D
D
9 years ago

>KratchThe SCUM Manifesto.Are you kidding me? Try watching the movie Who shot Andy Warhol released by liberals feminists and then get back to me how you can consider her insane diary to be main stream feminism in any way.I assume she is taught in woman studies as a question as to why she did the things she did. Much the same as Marc Lepine would be studied.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Now that is some twisted thinking.I have a book about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's views on why she started up with the Women Rights Movement and it had little to do with the commoditization of traditional women's work. It had a heck of a lot more to due with her getting mad at the way she was viewed by the men in her life.It was the anti-feminists that started up with the cult of domesticity…the feminists wanted equal footing with men.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>@Elizabeth,Don't forget that out one side of their mouths comes the "women's uniqueness in their nurturing role" while out the other side comes the "women are NOT unique in the nurturing department, in fact, men nurture as much if not moreso and this goes unrecognized".If women were unique in anything back in the 19th century, it was for their "hysteria", a mental disorder stemming from sexual dissatisfaction. Since it was a well-known "fact" that women did not have sexual urges, they "endured" sex for procreation only, the first vibrators were not seen as sexual devices but, rather, medical ones, to help alleviate the symptoms of a mental disease unique to women.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Elizabeth:"I have a book about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's views on why she started up with the Women Rights Movement and it had little to do with the commoditization of traditional women's work."I too have a book. It's a book that David Futrelle is in love with, a book written by the feminist author Gerda Lerner. Seems like your book is at odds with my book:"The Creation of Patriarchy"by Gerda LernerAppendix: DefinitionsPage 241:"On the other hand it was easier for women to maintain a sense of self-worth, because they so obviously shared the world and its tasks with men. Certainly this was so in pre-industrial society, when the complementarity of men and women's economic efforts was clearly visible. It was more difficult to maintain a sense of self-worth in industrial society, because of the complexity of the technological world in which men operated and because of the commodity nature of all market transactions… It is no accident that worldwide, feminist movements begin only after industrialization."Yes, being that this is a feminist author there is some dogma mixed in there, but Lerner does hit on a genuine reality when she ties the rise of feminism to the commoditization of women due to industrialization. I've weighed in on this already in my comment above.