Categories
antifeminism drama kings facepalm gullibility men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA playing the victim PUA sex sexy robot ladies shit that never happened straw feminists

Manosphere doofuses duped again by phony Canadian sexbot ban

NOTE: Don't buy this model. She's trouble.
NOTE: Don’t buy this model. She’s trouble.

So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that

provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?

The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.

You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?

Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.

If you Google “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act”  or “Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence” you will find that literally the only people talking about this issue are MRAs and PUAs and conspiracy theorists. And some of the more gullible 4channers, though a few of them quickly figured out that the whole thing was fake. (As did the Real Doll enthusiasts.)

Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the

This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services.  Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …

One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit.  But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.

Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.

NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.

510 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

I feel like a lightweight, but I can still make people laugh.

You’re no lightweight! And you make people laugh. Win/win. 🙂

katz
11 years ago

It’s not like we have a wittiness entrance exam around here.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

That reminds me of the IQ detector I wanted installed when I worked at the Museum. If you didn’t trigger it, you didn’t get in. Would have made customer service a lot easier.

Falconer
Falconer
11 years ago

I need a laugh so I’m going down
Down to the thread that I left last night
I need a laugh so I’m going down

David could you ban the sock
David Futrelle ban the Pell

Happiness is a warm troll (flame flame burn burn)
Happiness is a warm troll cloudiah (flame flame burn burn)
When I see you in the thread
And I feel my fingers on my keyboard
I know nobody can do me no harm because
Happiness is a warm troll (flame flame burn burn)
Happiness is a warm yes it is

Troooooooooll!

Falconer
Falconer
11 years ago

Fritz Lang’s early masterpiece–Metropolis–recently re-released with newly discovered scenes.

What is the answer to a question on the last page?

dire sloth
dire sloth
11 years ago

@Kitteh, is that a detector that detects a certain level of IQ, or just an IQ period? If the latter, did you have a lot of mindless entities trying to get into that museum? Like zombies or something o.O

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

LOL I think the answer is “yes to both” with the museum visitors, dire sloth! Some of ’em, I swear …

Falconer
Falconer
11 years ago

Whoop, hey, welcome to the commentariat, dire sloth! There’s a name whereby hangs a tale.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
11 years ago

Hi dire sloth!

Tech dept’s also need that IQ detectors, for both the staff and the clients. Honestly, I had more co-workers who were idiots than customers, but I was working at a university, so students had a certain level of “not an idiot” built in (don’t get me started on the doctors though!)

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

My favourite idiot was the one who came up when I was at the foyer info desk once. The building held the State Library – walk straight in from the main door – and the Museum – turn right, buy tickets at the big admissions desk, keep going.

This bloke walked up from the Library and said, “There’s nothing in there but books!”

“Of course not, sir, that’s the Library. The Museum is through that door” (pointing at door about three yards away).

Bloke walks out of building into the street.

Colleague at admissions desk, who heard all this, rings me and says, “That idiot bought a ticket from me an hour ago.”

Falconer
Falconer
11 years ago

I belatedly realized that I should say, “Thank you, Kitteh’s,” for telling me I make people laugh. Affirmation’s a good thing, but I swear I’m not trolling for pats.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
11 years ago

Did he have a magnet strapped to his head???

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

Didn’t think you were, Falconer, and you’re welcome! 🙂

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

CWS, maybe he should have done! 😀

Falconer
Falconer
11 years ago

G’night, all!

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

Niters!

Fed Up With the M-sphere
Fed Up With the M-sphere
11 years ago

Having recently been turned on (or off) to AVfM by one of the commenters here, just see what I found;

“Mutual-rape

Also, with the gender-neutral rule of, “Having sex with a drunk person is rape,” let’s consider something about these women who–simply because they were drunk–were supposedly raped: how many of them had sex with a drunk man? Plenty. Probably most. Therefore, all that rape is “mutual-rape”–the drunken man raped the drunken women and the drunken woman raped the drunken man.

Of course, plenty sexist, anti-male misandrists will insist, citing men’s sexual-worthlessness, that only SHE was raped. But remember our gender-neutral rule: “Having sex with a drunk person is rape.” And remember also the claimed aim of the fem-anesthetized: equality. And be sure to remember that so many of these anti-equality feminists ignore the true rape of men, women and children, choosing instead to carry on with their disreputable hobby of self-righteous, hypocritical anti-equality against men, boys and equality-minded women and girls–people who want to defend rape-victims and punish rapists, regardless of anyone’s gender.”

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/ignore-gender-denounce-rape-defend-all-victims/

I guess it could be considered a grey area. I don’t know what to think. Any one else here have some insight into this?

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

Oh well, I can see why they like lady bots — they don’t have any pubes..and that validates their porn collections.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

As I understand it from what I’ve read, it boils down to the person pushing sex on someone too drunk to give meaningful consent is committing rape, and being drunk themselves doesn’t absolve them of the responsibility. MRAs and rape apologists love to throw this furphy around, but it is still a matter of meaningful/enthusiastic consent, and the gender of the person doing it isn’t really relevant.

Of course the MRM hates the very idea of consent anyway.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

Oh well, I can see why they like lady bots — they don’t have any pubes.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
11 years ago

Pube Terror 2150 – Revenge of the Sexbots

drst
drst
11 years ago

I doubt you could ban sexbots because they might make men who use them more violent. You probably couldn’t adequately prove causality, especially given that causality might be in the opposite order (men with violent tendencies would be more likely to get a sexbot). In the US the SCOTUS has previously ruled that you can make something illegal because it might someday lead someone to do something else illegal.

Also you’d have to ban robots entirely, since one of the first things humans tend to do with any new technology is use it for sexual purposes, so there’d be no way to prevent people from using a robot for sex even if that wasn’t the original purpose of the robot.

We could probably get the MRM onboard with banning sexbots if they started making them for women, though. Beyond things like vibrators and the monkey rocker, etc.

Shiraz
Shiraz
11 years ago

LOL
🙂 I know, they make it so easy, don’t they?

Guys like them also make The Stepford Wives a still relevant horror film.

Fed Up With the M-sphere
Fed Up With the M-sphere
11 years ago

provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?

The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
——–

Vox Day attempts to portray himself as some sort of high IQ intellectual and multi-linguist, and yet he BELIEVE the above? Any 12 year old “NAM” (as he likes to call ’em) could see its obviously parody.

I guess English isn’t one of his better known languages since he was unable flesh out (heh) the obvious humor in this.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
11 years ago

I’d be happy to supply the MRM with sexbots, as long as they had certain design elements from the Iron Maiden incorporated. Not the spikes, just … locking devices.

heheheh

1 4 5 6 7 8 21