>
 |
| 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.
>I'd make an exception for 6. Or 8.But not Lucy Lawless?! Her too. I just couldn't remember her number. š
>e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said… @carswell – Well, that's aright, I doubt you're the kind of woman I would sleep with anyway.Sounds like a win-win proposition.
>DrewI can feel for your statements. Then I walk into a walmart and that whole females only going for that alpha's thing goes completely out the window. Seems to me like there are a vast majority of grossly overweight walmart shoppers that somehow come together as couples and I doubt even one percent of them have dived into this whole stepping up thing you believe women or men do.Maybe you should just go outside tomorrow, see how real people act as opposed to virtual people.
>e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said… @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?Dude, you're the one who started out by accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being "psychologically damaged." If you get in the pit, be prepared to get slammed. It's too late to act all outraged innocence now.
>Here we go again. Look, I have unrealistic expectations. I've been told this by various guys who IM me or facebook me and I ignore. See, I'm not conventionally attractive. This apparently means that if any man even lowers himself to asking me out my response is suppoed to be to thank him for saving me from my life as a spinster. I should probably also give him a blow job on the spot.Because of my looks and overall bitchy personality, guys would probably say that I'm a 3. That is the value they assign me. The problem is that I feel like I'm worth more than that. Not because I'm a perfect princess. But because relationships have costs. Every hour I spend with a guy is an hour I don't get to spend doing something else. I have a lot of fun in my freetime. I volunteer. I write short stories. I blog about classic movies. I hang out with my friends and family. I have a great time even when I'm alone. I'd rate my time with myself to be about an 8.So, if I'm going to go out on a date with some guy then he needs to be at least an 8 in terms of personality and fun. Or else what's the point? If I can have more fun by myself than with a guy then why should I be with him? That's like saying I should take a job with your company that will pay me less than I can make on my own out of fear of being alone. Nope. If/when I end up old and alone I'll just reprogram some sex bot to be a nursing bot to take care of me.
>missyGood post.
>That market is huge right now because women have giant, unrealistic, over-inflated expectations for a man they would choose to date. (i.e. ~ ā5 Minutes of Alpha Over 5 Years of Betaā)(Read: Alpha = looking nearly like a male underwear model, Beta = all other males)God, where did all this get started?I'm certainly no underwear model. Somehow I still manage to get action from time to time. I don't think women are all out there looking for Fabio.
>I should add, I also don't have a lot of money, and I don't have what you'd call "game". Yet… I'm not totally dateless. Imagine that.
>Yeah, dating sucks, at least some of the time, for most people. Hell, probably for all people. Men, women, gay, straight, rich, poor, ugly, or underwear model–pretty much everyone on the planet is going to have some amount of heartbreak, drama, or frustration in their romantic and sexual life.It's weird that some people choose to turn that universal frustration into a singular worldview that colors and distorts everything in their lives. You wanna have sex with a robot? Knock yourself out. But imagining that because dating is unpleasant for you–one individual man–IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY IT SUCKS FOR MOST PEOPLE–that justifies your overall hatred of women and fear of feminism is just really dumb.
>I'm entirely in awe of the kind of people that doesn't know or care about how much their behavior comes off as complete sociopathy. Me, my first thought on purchasing a robot bride would probably be along the lines of, "wait, is this going to put me on kind of FBI potential serial killers shortlist?" or "Will people disassociate themselves from me over this?" Then again, if you're actively seeking out robotic companionship, "human behavior" might not be one of your strong suits regardless.
>@Sam – what you think is your damage, so go nuts. If you are paranoid about the FBI compiling your information, you probably have as good enough a reason as anyone.It's pretty pathetic that you base your life on what others (and the FBI?) think of you, but that's your defect. So much for feminists not "giving a shit what others think," I guess.
>@tri – So you think someone with a worthless degree and – if I read that correctly – unemployed or busing tables is above an engineer because engineers don't get you off. Okay, your damage. I just don't respect you enough to care about what you think.
>People who are obsessed with occupation and major are creepy. I mean, a busboy might be way more interesting than an engineer. I mean, I once dated an engineer. It reminds me of the whole Patrick Bateman thing, where he keeps asking the prostitutes he hires: "Aren't you going to ask me what I do?"Also. You use the word damage a lot. Consider a thesaurus.
>In reference to Triplanetary's statement, one must also conclude that holding an ideology or belief is no less of a choice than a career path–certainly not something immutable like race or gender. Therefore, if Tri has little to feel bad about in stereotyping engineers, I suppose our MRA friends have little to feel bad about in stereotyping their feminist foes, whether as "dickless mangina losers" or something else.That said, e4, you can see what Tri's degree is for yourself–click on the link in his name, then go to the 'about' section of his website. *shrugs*Now with *that* said, in reference to your statement, It's pretty pathetic that you base your life on what others think of you,Given how other people can affect your life in negative or positive ways, particularly the FBI (in very negative ways, unless the Feds slamming down on you is considered a "plus"), being concerned with what other people think strikes me as less "pathetic" than reasonable.
>People who are obsessed with occupation and major are creepy.Preach it. I couldn't agree more. What you studied, what your aptitude is – these are just components that are supposed to make up the REST of your personality. Or it should be – it seems that for some people, that's what defines them, and THE MOST IMPORTANT THING about them and anyone they meet, the way they measure whether someone is worth their time or not. Which is, in itself, terribly dull already.e4 – social sanctions. We all suffer them. You can tout "I don't care what you think neener neener neener" as much as you want, when you're in trouble you'll need help from *someone*, hopefully someone that isn't alienated. Even if it is "only" a bank manager or a college admissions clerk or a mother or a sister or a friend.
>The robot thing AGAIN?How many posts does that make now?"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."And he is right!But the truth is that technology has been slowly eating away at female sex value for nearly 200 years now. That's why feminism got started in the first place ya ding dongs!You think women were 'oppressed' for THOUSANDS of years before finally doing something about it? Just how blinded by ideology are you guys? Don't answer that.For the bulk of human existence women of mediocre sex appeal (the majority) had always been able to rely upon sexual scarcity to have significant sexual value and thus significant sexual leverage over men. (the kind of leverage only 9's and 10's enjoy today)This started to change in the mid 19th century when the industrial revolution started making both pornography and reliable contraception (once expensive luxuries) cheap and ubiquitous. The latter resulted in a surge in prostitution. (i.e. cheap sexual competition) This is why 1st wave feminism happened.2nd wave hit following the development of viable oral contraception that led to the 'free love' culture.3rd wave 'sex pos' is a reaction to the failure of 2nd wave to restore the pussy cartel. In typical female fashion it attempts to make a defeat appear as a victory by appearing to embrace what it despises. Of course it's real aim is to control men's sexuality via draconian date rape laws.Nope. There has never been a 'patriarchy'. But it's easy to see why lots of women would see it that way. The less sexual leverage a female has the more the world WOULD look like a patriarchy to her. Ha! Ha! Ha!
>*snickers at the tired ole "you are only feminist because you can't get laid" screed.*Sure, dood. I got married and have 3 kids, have been married for a decade AND I'M STILL A FEMINIST because I'm totes ugly and unfuckable and I lust after that elusive fucking that no REAL man will give me that is the only thing in the world I desire and which motivates me. *snicker snort*I WISH they would actually make these robots, and would donate real, actual money to this end. Real, truly lifelike sexrobots. That way, the misogynists and assholes can self-select to exit the GenePool, stage right.
>@evilwhitemaleempireWomen had to use sexual leverage? Dude, between the agrarian and the industrial revolutions, the family was the main economic unit, your kids were your workforce. The mother's place of authority over her kids was incontestable. But if women could go around having sex and establishing relationships with whoever they wanted, then dudes wouldn't know whose kids were whose, and moreover their position in the family would be highly tenuous. It's men who had to control women's sexuality in order to ensure that they had any social power. You've got it backwards.
>evil::: This started to change in the mid 19th century when the industrial revolution started making both pornography and reliable contraception (once expensive luxuries) cheap and ubiquitous. The latter resulted in a surge in prostitution. (i.e. cheap sexual competition) This is why 1st wave feminism happened.2nd wave hit following the development of viable oral contraception that led to the 'free love' culture.3rd wave 'sex pos' is a reaction to the failure of 2nd wave to restore the pussy cartel. In typical female fashion it attempts to make a defeat appear as a victory by appearing to embrace what it despises. Of course it's real aim is to control men's sexuality via draconian date rape laws. :::Not a student of history, I see. LOL
>You think women were 'oppressed' for THOUSANDS of years before finally doing something about it?No. There were women arguing for the rights of women hundreds of years and more before "feminism" was a word. Hypatia, Aphra Behn, Mary Wollstonecraft. And there are many more.
>@e4919700-4d5-rdrr-HeironymousBoschLongnameThe FBI thing was meant as a bit of hyperbole, to illustrate that sexbot ownership sends out a general vibe of "creepy, maladjusted and potentially dangerous".
>I'm currently researching the writings of Arcangela Tarabotti and Mary Astell, who wrote critiques of patriarchy in the 17th century. The written record tends to be thin because women in Western civilization were, in general, systematically excluded from education, politics and the public sphere. But the historical record indicates that there have been women agitating for greater rights and against oppression for centuries.The University of Chicago Press has a pretty cool series of primary texts from woman philosophers of Early Modern Europe called "The Other Voice" that is worth taking a look at if this sort of thing interests you.
>It's men who had to control women's sexuality in order to ensure that they had any social power.I don't think that's quite how it came together. I think it had a lot more to do with controlling private property. The Catholic Church has many arguments in favor of celibacy oaths, but the one that got it done was protecting church assets from inheritance laws. And marriage, historically and today, is more of a small business than a sexual license. I think the sex-haters will always be with us, but the real driving force behind patriarchy was more commercial. Of course, I am far from an expert on this, that's just the vibe I get from my readings. Patriarchy is property law. Feminism is contracts. Lol. That may not make sense to anyone but me.
>Sophia, it wasn't until recently that there was much meaningful distinction between "women's sexuality" and "private property."
>Competing for a date with a guy who prefers the company of a sexbot is not really competition at all. And on pre- First Wave feminists: Hildegard of Bingen, who probably would have become Pope if she'd been born male. Queen Elizabeth I of England. Sappho. Abigail Adams, who wrote some very eloquent letters to her husband trying to persuade him to give women a place in the newly forming government. On the flip side: women forced to marry their rapist, women traded away in marriage contracts, women killed at birth because her parents didn't want another daughter and women burned as witches.