>
 |
| Build your own what? |
So the good fellows over on MGTOWforums.com were discussing, as they so often do, the impending arrival of the sexy robot ladies, and some of the practical problems that are holding them back (“Simply getting a robot to walk is an incredible task”), when the commenter calling himself Spidey suddenly directed his attention to me.
Well, not me personally, but all the “women (and manginas) reading this thread” and thinking less-than-charitable thoughts about the robotophile crowd. “If these guys are “perverts” and “creeps” then shouldn’t you be happy that they are releasing their urges on inanimate dolls rather then real human beings and hence not hurting anyone?” Spidey asked.
It’s a good question, and I’d like to offer my humble answer, which is: YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES. Please, take these robot ladies, and do whatever it is you want to do to them, and leave the real women of this world out of it.
Not that Spidey would be much interested in my answer. I doubt he would believe it, as he has clearly convinced himself that the women of the world (and, by extension, the manginas) are pissed at this high-tech challenge to their pussy monopoly. Speaking directly to the ladies, Spidey continued:
It’s because you KNOW that a sex doll can easily compete with you, because these dolls will always get better, they will always come out with newer, better looking sex dolls while you will always grow uglier, fatter and older. These dolls take away the only thing you can provide a man and the one thing you will use to control and manipulate him – sex. Now you can no longer with hold sex when you are wrong in an arguement just to get your way plus these sex dolls are STD free, unlike your used up vagina. Also I am pretty sure you realise that the men who buy these very expensive sex dolls must obviously have money, it must infuriate you that all that money is going towards an inanimate object that is better then you
Honestly, I think that most women will be rather relieved that guys who complain about “used up vaginas” will be voluntarily puling themselves out of the dating scene. But, never mind, because Spidey’s imaginary conversation with the ladies isn’t over yet.
Now I am also sure most women will say “but these things are fake and they will never provide ‘real love and companionship'”. Well guess what? men don’t want your love or companionship because your love is more fake then that provided by a virtual girl and your companionship is just as hollow. Is it “real love” when a woman f***s another man behind her husbands back, not because he has done anything wrong, only because she was bored or confused? how about when a woman f***s another man and pretends that the baby belongs to her hu
Let’s just skip past the rest of that paragraph; life is short, and it was just more of the same. Let’s try his next one:
As for companionship, men don’t want a creature that enjoys watching them suffer. We don’t want companoinship from a creature that demands everything from us but appreciates nothing. We don’t want to come home to a creature that yells at us for not earning enough money or working hard enough and if we do earn enough money we get yelled at for working too mu
Yeah, same deal. Let’s just move directly to his grand conclusion:
Yes ladies we would take a fake body and a fake personality over your aging body and narcissistic personality any day.
Trust me, Spidey, your personality isn’t going to win any awards any time soon either.
—
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.
>If Spidey gets a Stepford Wife, do you think he'll go for the Katharine Ross model, or the Nicole Kidman model?Based solely on outer appearance I'd go with Nicole Kidman. Even though her version of the movie is effin' terrible.
>I can see an author, serving as a symbol for the manosphere, at a standing desk in a London writing house, in fine dress with a quill pen aggregating the many arguments of MGTOW, MRA, etc. He comes to the final line of the final page."By way of conclusion, I shall say only this: At the end of the day, I really just want to fuck a robot."
>One of my professors was a retired diplomat from Pakistan. He was a facinating man who had the class over to his home on weekends to show off things he'd collected from years of work. He was in his 70s and had a wife in her 60s. She would make us Pakistani meals and sit in on our discussions. One of my friends in the class was the daughter of a plastic surgeon. At one point the friend, the wife, and I were talking about surgery. The wife said she always wanted to have it but her husband talked her out of it. "I'm his second wife. His first wife died of cancer in her 30s. When we married I dyed my grey hair and tried to hide my wrinkles. One day he asked me to stop doing this. He said that he was sad that he never got to see his first wife get any older and his greatest wish would be to enjoy seeing her age with him. Aging means that you've lived."It was one of the most lovely things I'd ever heard. Seriously. And it makes me leave my grey hair in. Aging is a gift and a blessing. Growing older with someone you love is such an amazing experience. I don't know why anyone would want to give up on that. Life with something that does what I want without having its own desires, needs, or wants isn't fun. Being with someone who doesn't challenge me sounds awful. I'm not saying that he shouldn't have his sex bot. I'm saying that it just sounds like the type of existence that would make me sad. Different strokes…
>I can honestly say that I've learned far more than I need to about the existence of sexbots since discovering this blog.There are a couple of questions that have crossed my mind – Spidey's latest paean to them brings one to mind.Do men use a condom when they use them? Or do they have to wash them out afterwards?I'm picturing some guy – our friend Spidey perhaps – with his sexbot positioned upside down over the laundry sink as he tidies up after his latest round. Hilarious.
>Because if the dating pool is reduced for straight women, they will never be degraded. I mean, look at how much better university women have it in colleges where women outnumber the men ( canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5cd0e1b6-17db-42f0-8f48-e64620ec653b ). You know, because only misogynists will have sex without the hassle of an undesired relationship, STDs, or personal risk.But yes, keep speaking for all women. You are an endless font of wisdom and humor, instinctively claiming one when called out on the other.
>The entire assumption behind that article is that it's immoral for women to have sex while in college. Your article fails.
>@Lady – did you read the pertinent parts? Your comment was about 6 minutes after mine, so I'd be surprised. Here's the relevant quotation stripped down for you:"Just look around any campus and this is what you'll see: The girls are all dressed to the nines, trying hard, and the boys, they look like slobs, they look like they aren't trying at all," says Dr. Sax. "Why do the boys think they can get away with this? Because they can, quite frankly…. What are the consequences of this three-to-two ratio [of women to men]? Young men are in short supply and they know it. They have a sense of entitlement …"We've seen an astounding transformation of sexual mores … There's no dating anymore, no [sexual] bases or order of sex acts anymore — We're seeing this because men are scarce."
>@Lady – You're pretty smart for your allegiance. I like the way you used the gist of the article in a desperate attempt to discredit any useful information recorded in it. No matter, here's another from the NY Times:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?_r=1&ref=fashion—-Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.
>Because if the dating pool is reduced for straight women, they will never be degraded. I mean, look at how much better university women have it in colleges where women outnumber the men ( canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5cd0e1b6-17db-42f0-8f48-e64620ec653b ). You know, because only misogynists will have sex without the hassle of an undesired relationship, STDs, or personal risk.I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the college women discussed in the article are degrading themselves by sleeping around? I'm just confused because you act like we'd naturally agree with that assessment.Lots of feminists love having sex outside of relationships. By and large we're all for it. The article you linked to is a bit of a moralistic drivel and I'm not really sure what you're trying to get across with it.
>I love the "I'm gonna take my sexbot and go home! You'll be sorry" vibe of the whole comment.Yeah, you go do that. And throngs of women everywhere cheer and do a happy dance. We'll feign concern of course, but there will be an undertone of glee.Plus, I love that picture. "Son, I've got a special project I'd like to you to help me with." – "Aw, dad, I dunno" – "It's a sexbot, just for you. That way, you won't have to touch any dirty vaginas!" – "WOW, gee, thanks dad! You're the best!"
>Because if the dating pool is reduced for straight womenThis assumes that MTGOW guys who lust after robots leaving the dating pool = a reduction in the dating pool. It doesn't.
>Would he have to use a condom? Electronics do not react well to liquids-at least that has been my experience.
>Missy, I am stealing that woman's statement "Aging means that you've lived." and posting it on my Facebook today. That is a beautiful sentiment.
>Hear hear, Missy!
>@Sally -I know you're not trying to be rational but rather cute and snarky. However, just embarrassed yourself and furthered the stereotypes you claim to fight against.If you weren't so quick to post your brilliant feminist wit, you would see that I noted MGTOWs (which you so gleefully generalized) would not be the only ones who would be "removed" from the dating pool. It would also be men who seek vapid "trophy wives" and a good number of men who want to have sex an unwanted relationship, risk of STDs, or personal danger.Thank you for your rational and constructive post, which indicated literary proficiency and a sincere desire to inform.
>I think it's hilarious that these guys think that women are in any way frightened or threatened by this. Judging by the responses here, the reactions seem to range from disgusted to amused, but no seems genuinely concerned that these guys will be removing themselves from the dating pool. A guy who prefers a robot to a real woman is not the kind of guy women want anyway.
>Hey-String sounds just like everything else Scott Adams has written…do we have a lazy libertarian among us?
>Stringer, you're so rational I can't understand what you say. I guess it's my tiny lady-brain that's tripping me up again. Clearly I was wrong, there are THOUSANDS of straight ladies out there who would severely disappointed at being deprived of the chance to be dumped in favor of a robot. And of course, removing men who treat women as trophies from the dating pool would also cause thousands of women to weep in grief, as would men who "want to have sex an unwanted relationship" (whaaaat?) and risk of STDS and PERSONAL DANGER OHMYGOD WHERE'S THE DANGER?????It's foolish of me to try to batter my puny wit against your superior mental powers. I don't know why I even try.
>No, not thousands! MEEEEELLIONS!*holds finger up to corner of mouth*
>A guy who prefers a robot to a real woman is not the kind of guy women want anyway.Only, if that were true people like Hugh Hefner would be virgins. You don't know what all women – in fact, women and men will say they want one type of person and then go after another. If you sincerely believe that and weren't just saying that to look cute and snarky, you have a symptom of severe psychological damage and I suggest you seek therapy.Please sit down and shut up, you're making a fool out of yourself and furthering the stereotypes you claim to fight.
>When it comes to sex bot fans like this Spidey, I always picture Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.
>@Sally – So the scores of ladies who date Hugh Hefner and other playboy millionaires would be delighted if he dumped them in favor of a sexbot? Or were you just applying your feminist theory to speak their words for them?I look forward to a sincere and honest answer.
>StringThe funny thing is you believe that any of those men would be missed being in the dating pool by anyone here (or anywhere).Also showing off your new sexbot to your wealthy friends as your significant other at a dinner party will never be considered a status symbol. Lumping what wealthy people do with nerds and rejects is in rather bad taste. You haven’t found love because you do not function within societies norms and are uninterested in the women within your peer group. Have with the sexbots, as a bonus perhaps you’ll (hopefully) be fulfilled enough to leave the normal people alone. Will it get you off the internet complaining about women all day and how they don’t want you? Who wouldn’t want that. Feminsts from what I can see WANT you to have your sexy robots, you should be thanking them. .
>You know, String, even when I'm looking for sex without commitment, I'm still far more attracted to intelligent, thoughtful, nerdy women. But I guess that comes from my mangina-esque failure to view women who have sex as subhuman scum.
>@Sally – since you seem to be hung up on typos, "an" is supposed to be " and avoid an ".To clarify, "personal danger" would be something like, say, a Duke Lacrosse scenario.I'm sorry if I confused you. It was my fault, as always.