>
 |
| 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.
>What? Oh, you mean you think Hefner and other dudes like him are going to outsource their bunny duties to robots? Well, I imagine the bunnies wouldn't be too psyched. But I wouldn't call what they do "dating." More like "hustling," or "building their brand." But let's grant the point. There are "scores" of women who will be negatively impacted by the removal of Hugh Hefner types from the dating pool. SCORES I TELL YOU!!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY A SCORE IS???!!!? Oh, it's two dozen? uh… well…Pretty revealing that Stringer does directly from "dating pool" to "Playboy bunnies," no?
>It was my fault, as always. You're such a kind and benevolent patriarch. š
>Only, if that were true people like Hugh Hefner would be virgins. Wait, Hugh Hefner's into robots? Learn something new every day…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. Everybody is different, this is true. I, however, was basing my assertion on the comments of the women in this thread…and the women I know from, you know, my real life: my wife, my friends, my co-workers, etc. Perhaps they all secretly lust after robotophiles, I don't know, but I tend to doubt it. Frankly, I'd tend to trust my own instincts regarding what most women want over yours, thank you very much.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. Hee hee! Ever heard of the term "projection?" In short: whatever, dude. Someone is making a fool out of themselves, and it ain't me.
>Oh, sorry – a score is only 20, not 24. My bad.
>See, String is a lot of fun. Over the top, out of touch with reality, devoid of insight, and absolutely convinced he's the smartest person in the thread despite all evidence to the contrary. This is the kind of MRA that brings me back to this site again and again. Bravo!
>@Sally – You are severely damaged if you think the only men who will accept sex with no strings attached are undesirable to all women. Now please, stop furthering stereotypes.@Bath – Women and men will say they date for personality, but in reality rich, educated men get more dates and pretty women get more dates. Now quit furthering stereotypes about feminist males seeing themselves as honorary women, please. Your twisted fantasies do not give you the capacity to speak for all women.
>Ah, Sally: you, too, are severely damaged? We should start a club.
>@Bath – Did you read that NY Times article about reducing the dating pool hurting women? Or are you too snarky and brilliant to bother reading plebeian words? Go ahead, tell me the only men who masturbate are men no woman would touch with a ten-foot-pole.
>Here's a theory:Men who are successful in their careers are good at networking, building relationships and also probably went to college (where they hopefully received the informal social education as well as education in their major). They know how to listen to people, how to read body language, have a good grasp on etiquette and manners, and know how to not piss people off. They are confident, competent and value themselves as productive human beings. So they managed to get hired and promoted over the heads of incompetent, lazy, entitled whiners. Now, looked at in that light, is it any wonder that these men will also be successful when they date?
>@Lady – so according to you, I shouldn't be enrolling in graduate school for a doctorate in engineering right now, nor should I date.By the way, aren't those men at the top members of this "patriarchy" you're always bitching about?
>Also, in response to the article:Yup, I read fast. Besides, I don't need to eat a whole loaf of moldy bread to know it's moldy. And you know, they could always do what I did – date men who aren't going to their college.
>@Bath – Women and men will say they date for personality, but in reality rich, educated men get more dates and pretty women get more dates. How does it follow, then, that the removal of the kind of men who prefer robots to women from the dating pool will be the tragedy for women that you seem to think it is? Rich, educated men will continue to get more dates, as will pretty women. Guys who like to fuck robots will hide in their basements and fuck robots. The rest of us will survive, I assure you.Your twisted fantasies do not give you the capacity to speak for all women. My twisted fantasies of what exactly? Men and women having healthy, mutually gratifying relationships? That my friendships and relationships with women give me a better idea of what most women want out of a relationship than, say, you? I would never claim to speak for all women; nevertheless, I don't see a lot of the women in this thread objecting to what I've said. It seems like common sense, rather like stating that women, on the whole, don't wish to be shot, stabbed or drowned. Not exactly controversial.You really can't imagine that I would see women as fellow human beings rather than fuck toys, can you? Inconceivable! I must be lying or indulging in sick fantasies instead.
>I read that article-why is this news? So there are more women then men for a few years-that changes after one leaves college and there are ample opportunities online to meet men.This is another 4% chance to marry after 35!!1!!! scare tactic.
>@Bath – Did you read that NY Times article about reducing the dating pool hurting women? Or are you too snarky and brilliant to bother reading plebeian words? Go ahead, tell me the only men who masturbate are men no woman would touch with a ten-foot-pole. No, I didn't read it. Got better things to do, like mocking you. And masturbation doesn't preclude being in relationships, which is really the point of dating anyway.
>So there are more women then men for a few years-that changes after one leaves college and there are ample opportunities online to meet men.You sound like you'd really benefit from a reduction in the dating pool if you have to search online for a date… and those are the kind of men you date. Just sayin'.What, I can't be snarky too?
>Got better things to do, like mocking you.You sound pretty tense right now. Why don't you take a breather for a second. Maybe you could read that article while you cool down? Reading makes you smarter, after all.
>Personal attacks now? You must be running out of arguments.
>By all means, let them have their robots.Oddly Relevant Star Trek Clip
>Yep, I suppose I am damaged, since Stringer says so. He knows so much about women, you know. Stringer is now confusing "men who want sex with no strings attached" with "men who only view women as trophies" and "men who'd prefer sex with nonhuman objects". Yes, we should definitely listen to this guy about what women look for when they're dating. Especially when, in 20-freaking-11, he thinks making cracks about how people who do online dating must be desperate, and thinks it's original.
>@Elizabeth – Well, I feel I've earned a little snark after, well…Got better things to do, like mocking you.And you can see the rest. I though feminists hated double-standards? Why the flip-flops?
>It seems like common sense, rather like stating that women, on the whole, don't wish to be shot, stabbed or drowned.Oh, I prefer a nice crucifixion! At least it gets you out in the fresh air.
>so according to you, I shouldn't be enrolling in graduate school for a doctorate in engineering right now, nor should I date.Haha, oh man. Why does it not even surprise me that you're studying engineering?Oh that's right, because it seems like every libertarian, Randian, whiny self-absorbed misogynist, and Galt wannabe is an engineer. I'm not sure I've ever met an engineer I like on a personal level.
>That wasn't Elizabeth, you singularity.
>Especially when, in 20-freaking-11, he thinks making cracks about how people who do online dating must be desperate, and thinks it's original.So you think sex simulation would not be in by 2030 or so? Vibrators used to be for unfuckable losers. Now many feminists take pride in owning one!
>Indeed it was not-my attempts at snark meet with abject failure online.I know a libertarian who is a lawyer but he does defense work for photo radar and that requires…dun dun duh! Math because you have to the math to see if the speeds are possible in his view. Oddly enough though, he is not misogynist.