>
 |
| Probably not the woman of your dreams. |
Hey fellas! Are you tired of dealing with actual women? Would you rather spend a nice evening at home chatting amiably with a tiny virtual woman who lives inside your computer instead? If so, would it be OK if instead of resembling any woman you’ve ever met in real life this tiny virtual woman instead acted as though she’d been designed by some dude who’s never actually spoken with a real woman?
Also, I should add, if you chat her up cleverly enough, she’ll take off her virtual clothes and show you her virtual lady bits.
If this all sounds like heaven to you, you may want to check out a little “game” called Virtual Woman Millennium Edition. A friend of mine found it on Download.com theother day, and naturally thought of me. The game, such as it is, allows you to create the woman of your dreams. As the game publisher, an outfit calling itself CyberPunk Software, put it:
Virtual Woman users can build, talk, and compete against Virtual Women with full artificial intelligence. You choose their ethnic type, personality, location, clothing, etc
By “compete against,” the game makers mean, basically, that you chat with her until she either tells you to fuck off (you lose!) or she takes off her clothes (you win!). Sex, evidently, is something that women own, and the point of dating, for guys at least, is to sweet talk – or wheedle, or con — the ladies into giving it to them. Women “win,” by contrast, when they force guys to listen to their inane blather without giving the poor schmucks even a glimpse of their titties. (I’d like to think that when my dates take off their clothes we both win.)
I played the game the other night – or at least as much of it as I could stand. The first time, the game crashed before the conversation started. The second time, I played as a raging misogynist and offended my date by calling her a “whore” and a “cunt,” and she left in a huff. The third time, I chatted long enough to convince my date to remove her top. At which point real life asserted its demands, and I set the game aside, never to resume it.
Let’s just say that the conversations I had with each of these imaginary women were something less than sparkling. The woman who eventually took off her top blathered happily away about her hair for a few minutes, then segued into a conversation about how she hated going to new supermarkets because she wouldn’t know where to look to find the milk. She was shallow, silly, and self-absorbed, a virtual incarnation of every sexist stereotype of modern womanhood. In other words, she seemed to come straight from MGTOW central casting. My “conversation” with her only lasted a few minutes, but it seemed to take forever. If real women were like this, I think even I would consider Going My Own Way.
As one review on Download.com put it:
the girls are just plane stupid, they … keep repeating themselves over and over again, and allot of what they say makes no sense, I say something to them, and they asked me some silly question that makes no sense, once I said what to one about something stupid it said that made so sense, just to see what it would do, and it said ( why are you so worried about me being what?) and it did that with other things I said to it too, its stupid, don’t waist your time with this.
That pretty much hits the nale on the hed.
So many questions:
Were the makers of this game deliberately trying to make the women as annoying as possible, or do they think women are actually like this? Was the inanity of the conversation a bug – the result of shitty artificial intelligence programming – or a feature? Probably a bit of both.
More to the point: who could possibly enjoy a game like this? You’d have to have a pretty low opinion of women to be able to put up with the game’s casual misogyny. But if you hate women that much, why would you want to spend your evening talking to an imaginary woman about shopping and hair?
Perhaps that’s why the publisher seems to have abandoned the game; the latest update on its web site is from 2008.
As I’ve pointed out before, a small but significant number of “mansosphere” men are eagerly looking forward to the day when sex robots and/or “virtual” women will give men what they see as a real alternative to real women, thus putting supposedly spoiled “western” women in their place and destroying feminism to boot. One of the many fatal flaws in this scenario is that the only people who seem to be interested in making sexbots and VR women are guys who have no fucking clue what actual human women are like. But, hey, if it gets these guys out of the dating pool, that’s pretty much good news for everyone.
—
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.
>Wait…so first no woman wants you because you're not rich and we're all gold-digging bitches, now you can get laid any time you want. Okay player. But let's ignore the fact that your story (on this, and everything else) keeps changing. We'll assume that you're able to attract dates and f*ckbuddies, but can't seem to land a solid relationship, and go from there.What's wrong with your attitude is that, well, you're incredibly obnoxious. This is not a political statement, or even a particularly feminist one. Is there a straight or bisexual woman in the house who does not find NWOslave at least slightly irritating? Would you please stand up?
>Out of curiosity, what is this event that happened that "tripled Title IX's power," NWOslave?This may be by own ignorance, but is Title IX an agency? I thought it was a law that mandated equality amongst gender…The rest is unimpressive. Assertion after assertion goes nowhere in supporting your claim, and just makes you out to be a kook.
>I'm not taking "advantage" of anyone, I simply can't afford the lifestyle demanded of me in this country for a long term relationship. Again my spelling dooms me as "not good enough." Perhaps my Filipino wife will overlook my countless flaws. They certainly aren't overlooked by the perfect ones here.Ahh the slave simply has no value. Funny thing is if I program a sexbot to be shallow, vapid, and stupid, these are all the things you claim I am. Also isn't a vibrator, which women constantly remind men they can never keep up with, nothing more than a….."robot" I mean it's a mechanical device designed to give you pleasure, right? And of course it's "good" when a woman uses her "robot" for pleasure. Her "robot" is better than a man. Well why is a mans robot bad? Why is he a loser? He can't get any? Does my value as a man hinge on a womans approval?
>You know, NWO, I sympathize. I mean, it's not like poor men ever get married, you know?Also, I know that one I got a vibrator, I totally lost interest in partner sex, let alone relationships. Oh wait! Both those statements are the opposite of true.
>http://thebrandeishoot.com/articles/10159Kirbywarp, Here is the event that took place by Title IX. Beyond a reasonable doubt has been replaced for men with preponderance of evidence. Which means in a he said she said case, her word IS the evidence. Title IX is now ABOVE the law, no police investigation is needed. Title IX will now be it's own police force and watchdogThis goes against every LAW in the books. Now where do your loyalties stand and your high and mighty words of denouncing this travesty of justice. Or is it just "silly."
>Five minutes after the first working sexbot is invented, MRAs will be going online to bitch about how lazy and selfish their sexbots are, and how their sexbots think they're so perfect but they're totally not all that, and they're just leeching off humans for batteries. Ultimately they will all vow to buy cheap black-market sexbots from Russia but never actually do it.
>Tell me now did Title IX expand it's State powers by promoting hatred, or did it go away because women get the lions share of college degrees? You see when something is a fact it is no longer a "conspiracy." And when a man can be incarcerated on a womans word alone, he lives in a Marxist police State.
>Oh yes, one other thing that wasn't mentioned in this Pro Title IX article, prattling off the many lies of which they're not held accountable for. The accused (man) does not have the right to face his accuser (woman).I guess if you're a man it might seem a tish unfair. However being the oppressed/privileged woman it probably seems like a pretty good deal.I can see a lot of "good" coming out of this gem. Dontcha think?
>Right, because nobody ever ends up incarcerated on a man's word alone.Also, for a marxist police state, we seem to have an awful lot of rich folks wandering around alive and with their wealth conspicuously non-redistributed. Just sayin'.
>oh my NWO. I am beginning to pity you. I have been following your comments here for days as I lurk the comments. The way you twist, changing your story for each new challenge is quite sad. You dont know who you are do you? I hope you can learn to see yourself as others see you and learn to like what you see. Then you will be able to attract a woman just like you'd like.back to lurking.
>I guess this gives you just one more choice in the myriad of choices you already have. Will you stand with men like myself against a Marxist State or will you stand with the Marxist State against men. Because sooner or later, a man, (not me of course) but one you respect will be hollabacked into prison.
>also David, I've been lurking happily for weeks now. This place is the bomb!Owllizard
>To many numbered poster, The hubris of believing my value as a man is dependent upon my attraction to a women is staggering.
>(edited for spelling)NWOslave:You might be interested in the usage of "Preponderance of the evidence" in other areas. Its primary use, according to that paragon of truth wikipedia, is in civil cases. Thus a domestic dispute or some such would be resolved in the same way that sexual harrassment cases will now be handled.Interestingly I haven't heard you complain about all of civil court cases.. Perhaps I shall hear from you soon? In any case, it most certainly does not go against "every LAW in the books."
>I wonder…does Blogger have an "ignore" function?
>"The hubris of believing my value as a man is dependent upon my attraction to a women is staggering." Misusing fancy-pants words like "hubris" certainly doesn't add to your value as a man.Your "value" (whatever that is) as a man IS dependent upon your attractiveness to women.Your "value" as a human being is dependent upon your accomplishments (of which I gather you have none), your intelligence (yours being very low) and your personality (yours being devoid of empathy and full of self-aggrandizing anger). Clearly, your value as a human being is at sewer level. The fact that it's reflected in women's lack of interest in you isn't hubris — it's an entirely expected consequence.
>But Captain Bathrobe, you'd miss out on so much fun! 😀
>NWO says "Well Kave, When I get home from my job I normally sleep for about 20 hours straight. Believe me when I say working 40 feet in the air for a week or two of 16 hour shifts can be mildly exhausting"Didn't you say you worked 17 hour shifts on the last thread you bowed out on… after commenting all day for two days from 40 feet in the air as a… machine designer! Somethings you should keep in mind the next time you pretend to be someone you're not. While your posting here and working at the same time.People that actually work with Cad, call it Cad. People that look it up on the internet call it by it's full name… I guess from your rather pathetic need to feel like you've built something.(CAD is a program that allows you to 3d model designs for industrial products instead of literally carving them out of wood or metal) An industrial designer, a tool and die maker, or an industrial engineer etc. One person can be all but none of them call themselves a machine designer.
>Kirbywarp said… But Captain Bathrobe, you'd miss out on so much fun! 😀It used to be fun, but now it's just tiresome. I'm actually starting to miss some of our other trolls.
>Kirbywarp, Yes indeed it is used, quite recently in DV and now "sexual harrassment" in college and of course restraining orders.And what do all these things have in common. I believe it's a womans word versus a mans word. And where does this "preponderance of evidence" rest? Ahh, of course, a womans word is gospel a mans word is…….? I'm gonna go out on a misogynist limb here. I gotta be totally honest with ya, I find it mildly unsettling that I can be evicted from my home, kicked out of college, incarcerated and placed on the sexual offenders registry on any womans word. But hey, you know misogynist me. Afraid to lose my privilege.
>No Kave I said that was my previous job, of which I added those jobs were shipped overseas due to quotas. Try and keep up.
>NWOYour expecting that the crowd will not know much about industry.I was following my families tool and die, and pattern makers around like Gods since I could walk. It is my PRIVILEGE that they had to put up with me.What have you really learned in your life?
>Yeah, fuck this shit. I'm going to 4chan.
>I'm just trying to understand when it is you sleep NWO.Your previous job which is really not a job?
>Please tell me how I misused a word amused? Haughty, prideful, arrogant. Yea I'm pretty sure I used it correctly