>
 |
| 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.
>Vibrators used to be for unfuckable losersActually, no, that was never the case. Vibrators began their life as respectable products that were openly advertised in department store catalogs. But, y'know, don't let not knowing shit about what you're talking about stop you from spouting off.
>Online dating… sex simulation in 2030… The connection is…? Nope, not following. *shakes fist at sky*CURSE YOU STUPID LADY-BRAIN!!
>@tri – Don't you always bitch about stereotyping people?Also, you're half-right about the Rand thing – I believe it's retarded to give people free money in the form of alimony or welfare while prisoners clean our highways. However, I also believe in socialized medicine so I guess your stereotype fails there. I think libertarianism is fundamentally flawed, though I don't know enough about it to form a truly solid opinion on it. I think Galt is a philosopher, and don't know much more than that. I assume you'll mock me for that as well.While we're assuming, I take it you're shooting for or already have some degree which is the equivalent of mental masturbation and is worth the paper it takes to clean up afterward.First guess: Women's studiesSecond guess: SociologyThird: Criminal psychology (like Gail Magnum!)Fourth, fifth, etc.: Any other humanity or social science I could learn from reading my NY Times subscription
>I see Grandpa Simpson shaking his fist at the sky.Oh and there are sex bots now-they just suck (yes, pun intended) because they are not life like.
>The final word on this was written in 1953.
>I know a couple engineers and IT guys, and they're likable people. Then again, I'm self-selecting amongst the "People I Like Being Friends With." Though, Mr. String certainly has a point. Robophilia rights now!
>Oh and there are sex bots now-they just suck (yes, pun intended) because they are not life like.I'd imagine they're like banging a corpse. Either way, I wouldn't own a sex bot because *gasp* the favorite part of a relationship for me is the post-coital dialogue, followed by the outings and spontaneity of it. The reason I'm for sex bots is because I know it will decrease the competition, and may be a sobering call for women to be grateful for what they have.
>Vibrators used to be for unfuckable losers.LOL!!! Not quite. Vibrators were developed because women were experiencing negative symptoms (eg., irritability, insomnia) of not being sexually satisfied…… because they were only BEING fucked, for procreation or for the man's orgasmic pleasure.
>The reason I'm for sex bots is because I know it will decrease the competition, and may be a sobering call for women to be grateful for what they have.You strike me as one of these guys who bleats on about men not getting any respect from women, when respect is not at all what you want….. nothing less than WORSHIP will do.
>Explains your love of that article. Now I could be mean and make these assumptions about you String-You are a guy who is portly, possibly with bad skin, shy, lack social skills, lack much if any sexual experience and have been lonely most of your life. But I am not going to-because you could be just an ass out of the fact you were born that way and it could not be helped.Also, some women are grateful for what they have, others are not. Humans be humans. And we can all just go to China-they have a 130-100 male to female ratio there.
>Trip said:"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"Sometimes you get out of line and this is one of these times. Which kind of engineers do you not like? Electrical engineers are icky, are mechanical o.k? How about female engineers (my wife’s mother was an electrical engineer).I’ve seen this before in your posts and I have to say it. Stop being the stereotype
>You are a guy who is portly, possibly with bad skin, shy, lack social skills, lack much if any sexual experience and have been lonely most of your life.Go ahead an think that, it's your damage to work around. I won't give you detailed statistics on how many calories I burn or miles I run a day or what shade my complexion is because I don't respect you enough.
>Most here seem to be working with the assumption that men will want to replace women with the sexbot. Although it would inevitably occur that a person would “dump” (or otherwise reject) their significant other in favor of a sexbot, the majority of the market would consist of men who cannot otherwise attract a female. That market is huge right now because women have giant, unrealistic, over-inflated expectations for a man they would choose to date. (i.e. ~ “5 Minutes of Alpha Over 5 Years of Beta”)(Read: Alpha = looking nearly like a male underwear model, Beta = all other males)It’s not that Alpha men would rush en masse to replace their concubines with sexbots, they already have enough sex so why would they pay more? It’s that most men (i.e. ~ Beta men, the largest proportion of the male population) would simply have an opportunity to experience realistic, enjoyable sex with a female, even though she is “not real” in the most traditional of senses.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.The 50% that women reject right off the bat for not being almost “perfect” in their media-saturated overly-superficial eyes are going to be the lion’s share of the sexbot market. They’re not replacing any one, really. Are you implying that most of the male population on the planet should not be happy?Feminsts from what I can see WANT you to have your sexy robots, you should be thanking them.Exactly! I’m sure most feminist’s would agree that sexbots are good, right? What are some feminist forums where I could make a poll on the question?I’m sure there are feminists out there right now who have to work on technology that will be incorporated into sexbots! I wonder if they are going to do the code to enable the sexbots to make me sammiches?You really can't imagine that I would see women as fellow human beings rather than fuck toys, can you?The vast majority of men do see women as fellow humans, not as objects. But the vast majority of women do not see many men as fellow humans if the men are not Alpha enough. The women won’t even notice them, let alone acknowledge that they are human too.Human beings have needs, one of which is sexual intimacy. The vast majority of women have no real reason to say that they are forcefully deprived of one of their human needs, but many men are deprived of this basic requirement for a healthy life.Why does it not even surprise me that you're studying engineering?I’m an engineering student as well. For a guy, this pretty much means a life of inability to date since there are almost no women in your classes and your friends pretty much consist of the same type of people. I’ve often thought of switching to nursing, but I took a few classes with more women in them and found that they pretty much suck at trying to form relationships of any type with men who don’t look like underwear models.
>I suspect that robots would have much the same effect as porn. Individual relationships may suffer, but the overall effect will be negligible. Humans, by and large, still will want relationships with other humans, and that preference will win out over robots.
>@ Capt. BathrobeSexy No. Six would like to take issue with that statement. Are you bigoted against AIs? Huh? Are you?
>While we're assuming, I take it you're shooting for or already have some degree which is the equivalent of mental masturbation and is worth the paper it takes to clean up afterward.And your guess would be correct.Sometimes you get out of line and this is one of these times.Oh dear me. :OCareer choice isn't race or gender. I don't feel particularly bad about making generalizations in this case.
>String::: The reason I'm for sex bots is because I know it will decrease the competition, and may be a sobering call for women to be grateful for what they have. :::I'm afraid not enough men are going to go the sexbot route to leave you an open playing field. Even if that unlikely event were to occur – I doubt very much that anyone would be so grateful for what you have to offer that you'd find yourself amongst those reaping the benefits of reduced competition.
>I'd make an exception for 6. Or 8.
>I'd make an exception for 6. Or 8.But not Lucy Lawless?!
>@carswell – Well, that's aright, I doubt you're the kind of woman I would sleep with anyway.
>String-I bet you think that song "You're So Vain" by Carly Simon was about the man.Drew-query, what kind of female do you like? Average, plain Jane or supermodel Christie (google Christie Brinkley)? Because if your expectations are unrealistic, why be upset with those women's unrealistic expectations?Also, not all women like alphas-some of us adore the chubbsters.
>Career choice isn't race or gender. I don't feel particularly bad about making generalizations in this case.@tri – That's alright, feminists have always had a certain ineptitude towards admitting errata and you're no exception.
>@Elizabeth: I'd pretty much take whoever would accept me! I mean, there are some limitations. I guess she'd have to be under the age of 50 or so, and not weigh more than say 350 pounds?Of course, I knew you were going to assume that men who can't find dates have unrealistic expectations too. But the truth is that many men have the same expectations as I do (i.e. ~ really low expectations).NAWALT? Really?
>This female does not. Never have, never will. I would post my ideal but he happens to know me in real life and I would rather he not know.And I did not assume your expectations were unrealistic-I said if they were then stop being mad at women for being equally unrealistic.
>I asked my husband if he'd dump me for a sex robot. His answer: "Oh, honey, of course not. I'll want you and the sex robot."That's the problem with these misogynist dudes. They just don't think big enough.