>Roxxxy and the Sexbotapocalypse

>magdelyn, you need this:http://www.amazon.com/Look-Into-My-Eyes-Hypnosis/dp/1440449864/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1295247280&sr=8-2Then you can create a whole fembot army.

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

>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

>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.

>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.

>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?

>"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?

>"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?

>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?

>@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.

>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,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.