The Sexbots Are Coming

Video here. NSFW, but so watchable. This girl takes down feminist objections to sexbots like a pro.

up
37 users have voted.
I like this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

long ago

I predicted his day would come. u can probably find my rantings about it here, on some of my old posts, as well as many other places across the web. although this lady has some good points, the main reason women feminists attack this whole notion of robot love is $$$. men not signing up for perpetual servitude doesn't put permanent alimony in her pocket. it doesn't allow women to get auto-custody in divorce if there is no marriage. unmarried men can use d.n.a. tests to prove they are not the father. not necessarily so w/ married or divorced men. we all know all the goodies that can come w/ c. s. w/o any top end. 'she gets the gold mine, he gets the shaft' wasn't just something some crazy guy made up. it is very real. guys usually stumble away from marriage heavily in debt for decades to come, if not until death does he part. and let's not even talk about the emotional toll inflicted on men, since women still file for the vast majority of divorces, especially where children are involved.

like just about everything else in this society, its all about the $$$. if some pimps starts pimping out robot love on street corners, you can bet the local talent will start acting in a very similar manner. sex has always been about financial gain. its even called 'the oldest profession'.

up
5 users have voted.
I like this

Agreed

As another MANN reader once said, listening to a feminist and traditionalist woman talk about the role/place of men in society is like listening to two different slave-owners talk about the best way to hold the whip when whipping their slaves. It's about "what is the best way to utilize men for our own purposes?" Feminists are in an overt-exploitation mode of thought wherein the pretense is removed and moral justification is had by a paranoid appeal to women's interests, styling men too dangerous categorically to be left allowed to wander among women. Hence the reduce-to-10% school of feminist thought that hopes one day to see men quite literally penned up in livable but sparse accommodations and used as breeders -- via artificial insemination of course. Some feminists dismiss such an idea as simply impractical; men are needed to collect trash, fix things that are dirty, and otherwise are useful creatures to have around (after all, we DID invent just about everything). Besides, why waste the labor value of men so long as they can be controlled via shock collar or something else. Then there are the more moderate who seek to see women-only spaces established all over the place with mixed-sex spaces that women can freely move in and out of. Of course the legal system will need to be altered substantially and the Con'nal rights of men "interpreted" away, but put enough feminists in enough offices and it can be done. The Nazis did it, after all, why not them? So the debate within feminist circles rages.

Outside of these circles one can find reactionary women who want to go back to the good ol' days where women didn't have to work nor were expected to work, yet could still go to college, albeit not as in as many numbers, and men were expected to marry and provide for "the little woman", who could still divorce the sucker and take his house. Likewise, the kids were hers. Though traditionalist women would rush to condemn such behavior, not one will suggest that the right to divorce a husband unilaterally would be a good idea to revoke. The traditionalist is more about seeing the sexes institutionally re-integrated, with social and legal values lining up behind it, but men placed firmly in the "provider" role.

In both cases, it's about $$. The more extreme feminists (the Ten Percenters, I call them) are deemed impractical in re managing men like cattle, as it will be difficult to do so but the opportunity cost is great. Men have shown how useful they are and profitable their abilities can be. So long as they are kept corralled, why not utilize them? Hence the more moderate school of modern feminism. The even more liberal wing actually sees men and women not nearly so segregated but always the option to stay away from men at all costs is there, with men's rights to own property, keep money earned, etc., all sufficiently curtailed. This is after all about social justice, too. Time to even the score up. Only, there's no plan to ever exit the score-evening system of social justice. There's the rub. As for the traditionalists, need I even point out how it's about money?

Discuss any given woman's POV on how relations between the sexes should be and today you'll get either a feminist model (or similar) or a traditionalist model (or similar). You may occasionally run across a woman who genuinely wants to keep boys on the side. This is one worth getting her phone number. :) She is much less likely to give you trouble later.

This is why I am pro-MGTOW. With rare exception, you won't meet a woman who doesn't want a feminism-influenced rel'p (oy) or one who isn't "old fashioned", as she'll call herself, with all that entails (you pay for everything, open the car door for her, drive everywhere, etc.). Hard to find one who isn't in one of these two camps and both of them see you reduced to a mere means to an end.

So, keep interactions with women minimal and to your point. Avoid LTRs with them. Politically, fight against such vile beings as HRC and Kirsten Gillibrand with everything you have. May I suggest some of the more politically-minded run against people like them, assuming you have the $$. (KG got the $$ she needed from HRC and her own wealthy husband. HRC got hers again from Bill and by lying to people about how she was going to serve them when she got elected, etc. I have yet to know of a female elected official -- let me be clear - a female Democrat -- who got there by her own fund-raising acumen that did not include utilizing her wealthy husband's money or contacts. If anyone knows of one who did, please let us all know. I'm genuinely interested to know.) Politics today is so filthy corrupt with big $$ "contributions", it takes millions to get elected now to a state Assembly seat, never mind Congress.

Anyway, back to sex-bots... I see the increasingly-influenced-by-feminists legislatures and eventually executive branches in the US one day outlawing sex-bots. But that will be akin to outlawing things like illegal opioids and marijuana. That stuff kills people (def the opioids anyway) and yet the gov't seems utterly powerless to stop it. Sex-bots will be useful for banging but will hardly represent a threat to life such as what opioids do. And arguably as many women are hooked on opioids as men, probably more. Since feminists in high political office seem much more interested in chasing away male colleagues and posing for photo-ops vs. actually trying to help the average woman (including the many hooked on heroin, fentanyl, etc.), it may well be that they overlook sex-bots entirely and instead spend all their time toasting their electoral successes and eating lunch at tawny restaurants. Though to be fair, I think that'll get old for them after awhile. Busting balls is so much more satisfying than the same-old beef wellington and Cabernet lunch at the Four Seasons. :)

The best way to fight financial exploitation by women is to not date/marry them. Works pretty well. The thing to look out for is the idea of special taxes imposed on men specifically. That already exists in Israel where men are required to pay a higher percentage in taxes than are women. In fact there's talk already of at least trying that in the US.

I believe heading into the next 10 years politically, any number of nasty things will likely be trial ballooned. It's imperative that men as a class recognize the assault and respond accordingly. Best defense is a good offense so the sooner we get ready the better, IMO.

up
8 users have voted.
I like this

okay, but....

I do hope, however that the few decent of us (women) that are still left won't be replaced! *pouts*
(P.S. Love Shoe0nHead!) (^_^)

up
1 user has voted.
I like this

In my case...

... at my age, I'll never go over to banging androids, unless they're like the humanoid Cylons from the new BSG and I can't tell they are androids. (Well, those Cylons weren't really androids, though).

It's not men in their 40s or older you need to think about, nor men in their 20s and 30s. It's men yet to be born. When a teenage boy's first sex is with an android, that is how he will think about sex. H@ving it with a human female will probably seem less-than-ideal. I will imagine that androids will not get menstrual periods or say unexpected things at inopportune times, suddenly change their minds about it, etc. Androids I suspect will just plain let these guys ride them all day. [When I was a teenage boy, if I had had a sex-bot android, I'd've humped the bejeesus out of her non-stop for weeks. THAt would have been a good reason to skip school. :)]

By 18, sexing a human female will be a ludicrous idea.

I foresee a day in the not-too-distant future (before 2100) wherein some part of the human male population, in the first world to start, will simply no longer view women as necessary for any reason. H@ving kids will be a ludicrous idea as it has become for many already. The only reason a male will have to talk to a female is if he absolutely has to. Further, half-human/half-artificial-DNA-humanoids will be possible probably by 2150 so reproducing with androids will be possible, assuming you'd even want to. The android owner could determine whether or not she will be fecund at any given time.

I have said it before and will say it again, at some point women will start paying for men to talk to them. This has already started in Japan as young Japanese men have concluded it isn't worth the risk or bother to have a gf or wife.

You'll be OK, Erika. It's the women yet to be born a few generations hence that will have to deal with "The Great Divorce". Finding large numbers of women who find being around men unpleasant for some reason historically has been fairly easy. men are often judged en masse by certain women to be deficient or undesirable. Witness modern feminism, which has taken it ti new heights. But sex-bot androids will for the first time create a situation where men view women as wholly rejectable and will take steps to keep them AWAY from them. With the exception of portions of humanity that have entered celibate clergy status (and even then, the keep-away is for celibacy reasons, not personal ones), men have, I don't think, ever found women as a class objectionable nor rejected their presence. But that day is coming. Feminists are seeing to it.

up
0 users have voted.
I like this