The sexy robot ladies are back! Not so much in real life, where they are still more scary than sexy, but in the fervid imagination of dudes who hate real ladies. Like Eric here, on The Spearhead:
When I first came to the MRM, there was a story in the news about a Japanese robotics engineer who had made a female android. It really wasn’t much more than a fairly realistic-looking doll; although there was quite a bit of discussion at the time for the potential to improve on the design. The main thing was that it’s invention caused a fury from the feminists. Even at that early stage in my MRA days, I could see the reason: for the first time women were looking the very real possibility that they could become expendable.
Well, “expendable” only if you view women as little more than support systems for their vaginas.
Personally, I’m more into foreign girls than virtual sex. But the same principle applies: as long as there are alternatives to feminists, the feminists are expendable. They don’t have the power to convert every woman on the planet; and even if they could they can’t stop men from building robots.
Please, build those robots, and lock yourselves away with them forever, and leave the rest of us alone.
Elsewhere in the same thread on The Spearhead we get some examples of why it’s a problem when Men Who Really Should Be Going Their Own way … don’t. A fellow calling himself Rmaxd apparently suggested that men who feel themselves to have been mistreated by the courts should: “Lynch a judge as you would any traitor or dictator.”
His comment was deleted, and heavily criticized — apparently for not being circumspect enough in his threatening language. After all, our dear friend JeremiahMRA got mostly upvotes on The Spearhead for a similarly threatening remark just the other day. And elsewhere in the very same thread as Rmaxd’s now-deleted comment we find a fellow called freebird suggesting that men who have allegedly suffered because of women should
share this pain with those inflicting it.
cue up “blood on the plow”
Meanwhile, again in the same thread, a commenter called walking in hell brings up the example of Thomas Ball, the MRA who self-immolated on the steps of a Keene, New Hampshire courthouse a year ago in hopes that his dramatic death would inspire other men to (quite literally) burn down police stations and courthouses using Molotov cocktails. (You can read Ball’s manifesto, complete with its call for MRA terrorism though without the specific instructions on how to make effective Molotov cocktails, on A Voice for Men, in its “activism” section; search the page for “burn” to go directly to his advocacy of terrorism.) Walking in hell also thinks family court judges should be “punished” for their alleged “crimes,” by which he means denying some fathers visitation.
[R]esponsibility for such heinous crimes against children can behold an individual to a special kind of punishment.
We see the nervous squirming by judges in the Australia case marked by the judge issuing an apology. We also see nervous squirming in the UK with the evildoers trying to issue fake political gestures to angry people.
The evildoers must smell something besides fire and brimstone. The sooner they get to the fire and brimstone, the better off children and fathers will be.
Apparently this vaguely threatening language was vague enough to pass muster on The Spearhead; this comment got more than a dozen upvotes.
The sooner you fuckers build those sexbots you like to talk about so much, the better for all of us.
He used abuser language, too. Look at how Ball used the passive voice.
He used the passive voice to make it sound like something that just happened, rather than something he did to her. She didn’t get a cut lip. Ball cut her lip. Yet MRA’s continue to lionize him.
Or you know, instead of slapping his little girl, he could have joined in the fun and given her a great big slurp.
“Is it everything you expected?” – David
Well it made me laugh, I suppose that’s.. something? Nothing like a slightly amusing troll on a slow day to lighten the mood.
This is a long-winded response to the troll’s arguments about how dolls are such a slippery slope to necrophilia and lingerie OMG! Offered mostly because it’s hot and I’m avoiding packing.
Under US law you can’t actually ban something on the grounds that it might someday in the future theoretically lead someone to commit a crime. There was a SCOTUS decision about “virtual child porn” (meaning porn created using computer imaging to de-age consenting adult models. Ew.) that touched on this. Child porn is illegal because the creation by default involves sexual assault of minors, so the question came up, if it’s a computer generated image and no child was involved, what does that mean for the law? The argument was put forward that the material could lead pedophiles to escalate from virtual to real, and SCOTUS said possible future events weren’t sufficient for banning something: http://articles.cnn.com/2002-04-16/justice/scotus.virtual.child.porn_1_child-pornography-traffic-and-american-beauty-sexually-explicit-activity?_s=PM:LAW
However SCOTUS also upheld a law making offering or soliciting any child porn illegal: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/washington/20scotus.html
(Teaching digital ethics classes has lead me to some strange readings over the years.)
Fallacy is like Anti-Meller. Has a portal to the mirror dimension been opened?
ahahahahahhahahahaaahahhaahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahaaahahahahhahaahahahahahahhahaahhahaha
Hmm… Fallacy do you have a small beard?
Other options include a statistically unlikely colour-inverted palette.
It’s not just Japan, Fallacy dear. You can buy girlfriend pillows (and boyfriend pillows, there’s one with Sebastian from Black Books on it) right here in the US– along with Real Dolls and everything else your perverted little mind desires.
And, you know, I’m cool with it. Your perversion is not my perversion but your perversion’s okay, you know?
Also before you ban RealDolls to prevent necrophilia I really think you need to see about banning lolicon to prevent child pornography and noncon porn to prevent rape, insofar as those are (a) actually logically connected and (b) crimes that actually hurt actual people, as opposed to corpses. Oooh, and ban guro to prevent murder! There are WORLDS and WORLDS of things for you to be outraged about, little troll, sexdolls are only the beginning.
About fifteen years ago my grandmother bought a life-sized man doll to ride in her passenger seat so she wouldn’t look like a vulnerable woman driving alone. Unfortunately she was laughed at so much by those in passing cars that she had to get rid of it. The doll eventually ended up in my mother’s garage, and we used to change his shirt and play with him. It was like having a life sized Ken doll. Unfortunately his pants were sewn on. 🙁
With your logic:
Dildos will lead way to women wanting to have sex with chopped off male penises..
Vibrators will lead way to women wanted to fuck robots or cars.
People into the school girl uniform fetish will lead to them wanting to fuck children.
Furries will lead to people wanting to fuck animals.
Honestly this all sounds familiar as the “slippery slope” argument which is crap I hope you know.
Also you fail at understanding what kinks/fetishes mean. There isn’t “gateway fetishes” that will lead you to becoming a pedo/zoophiliac/necrophiliac or some other fetish, you either have it or you don’t. Also you can have a fetish and never actually carry it out. For that reason I try not to demonize people for having an unfortunate kinks and who have the morals to never do it. If someone was into fucking dolls because they look like dead bodies and not actually performing necrophilia I honesty would not care if that helped them cope with their unfortunate fetish. That being said I don’t think thats why many of the dude’s use sex dolls, it seems like most of the users have things for dolls rather than corpses.
The emotional attachment seems a bit ridiculous to me but its not more offensive than someone having emotional attachments to items or cars. They don’t particularly offend me nor do I feel any threat by them. If thats how they want to live their life, then I don’t see why I should care since its not going to effect mine in any way.
There was a pretty good TV show here in Sweden recently called “äkta människor” which means “real people” or “real humans”. It’s not really set in the future, rather in a parallell world where technology is pretty much the way it is in reality EXCEPT that they got advanced human-looking robots.
There were a few human/robot couples in the series, and since the robots seemed sentient it sort of prima facie makes sense to have a romantic and sexual relationship with one. But then there’s the REALLY FUCKED UP POWER DYNAMIC when one partner legally OWNS the other one, who’s also programmed to do as you say.
For instance, there was a woman who was really unhappily married. Her husband even slapped her at one point. She had this personal trainer robot whom she started to spend more and more time with, because he’s programmed to be nice and caring. Eventually she ran off from her husband, taking the robot with her. Since she was scared of her husband, she had the robot illegally reprogrammed to act as her bodyguard (although all robots were originally programmed never to harm a human) – and, almost as an after-thought, she also had the robo-hacker install a sex program in the robot so she could sleep with him. Okay, that’s creepy to start with, programming somebody to have sex with you. After being reprogrammed however the robot was acting more autonomosly, took his own initiatives rather than just following orders, and for a while it seemed like they did have a real romantic relationship going on, the woman and her robot. Eventually though, their relationship started to look really abusive, with her as the abuser, even if she didn’t physically hurt the robot. It just came from her being aware that legally, she OWNED him, legally, he was a MACHINE.
Anyway, it was a good show, and apparently it was sold to some American TV channel, so if it airs in the USA you should check it out.
http://www.joblo.com/horror-movies/news/upcoming-swedish-sci-fi-series-real-humans-being-remade-already
Seems from this article it’s rather a remake they’re gonna do.
Let’s get that nasty Poirot man off our tee vee sets and library shelves. He only encourages people to have large dinner parties and then kill the host after he’s announced he has major news.
And that Holmes fellow has an unnatural relationship with street urchins. Imagine, talking to them like they’re decent people!
[/Snob]
“Vibrators will lead way to women wanted to fuck robots or cars.”
Or washing machines. Stop the wanton violation of washing machines today – ban vibrators.
Soon, people who fuck to music are going to get sick of their computer speakers and are going to start having sex in concert halls! Ban all music!
@drst
i don’t really see how sex robots raise first amendment concerns tho?
Aww, Fallacy, that’s kinda cute, thinking I’m going to be all shocked that you own a dildo. Or that I give a fuck that some randomer thinks I’m not kinky enough. I’m going to have the sex I want – that’s kind of the point of sex – and your opinion on it is entirely irrelevant.
Which apparently bothers you.
It’s amazing how quickly Fallacy shifted from “OMG perverts!!! Slippery slope! Think of the children!!!” to “Oh yeah? Well I’m a bigger pervert than you, so there!!”, isn’t it?
Dracula: It’s almost like the important thing is that Fallacy is better than us.
They probably just got bored of the fakey-troll child-level argumentation techniques and reverted to their normal behaviour.
Sharculese – I have no idea if they would. I was responding to the troll’s ridiculous slippery slope argument about why dolls shouldn’t be allowed.
No, no, you don’t understand. Only Fallacy has reached the perfect sexuality, neither perverted nor boring. We must all ask her to enlighten us further.
It’s not my argument that’s on a slippery slope, it’s your moral relativism. It’s hypocritical to believe that it’s perfectly fine if they fuck their doll and fall in love with it and have a relationship with it, and state that they aren’t perverts at all, but they need to keep that shit out of your face because you don’t want to see him kissing him out with his doll in public or doing sexual things with it in public such as kissing. Why exactly isn’t he allowed to take his doll out and kiss it in public? Oh that’s right, because others would then see his perversion and we can’t have that, because we need to deny he’s a pervert at all costs, because it makes us feel all morally superior not to judge anyone in our politicallly correct world of hypocrisy.