If we're honest, there really is a sizable portion of men who probably dont want anything from women other than to cum inside them.
Can you look at these incel and red pill forums and tell me that sex bots wont be successful products because men want more from women than to just cum? I mean, hell, look at how much money is spent in strip clubs and on prostitutes.
Sex bots probably aren't going to change the dating game that much (for now) but once they get good enough and cheap enough, I'll bet they wont have any trouble finding buyers.
> If we're honest, there really is a sizable portion of men who probably don't want anything from women other than to cum inside them.
And if sexbots end up convincing those guys to never interact with a real woman again, that's probably the best outcome for everyone.
I see no particular reason why sexbots wouldn't fit into the exact same social niche as strip clubs and prostitution, neither of which has put a damper on our ability to procreate.
>Can you look at these incel and red pill forums and tell me that sex bots wont be successful products because men want more from women than to just cum?
I don't think you understand those communities
My impression is that there's a fixation on the status of the women they say they don't want anything but sex from. They theorize that men want to have sex with any and every woman, but their own behaviour is, ironically, the best counterargument to their theories. Elliot Rogers crystallized it with his rants about "spoiled, stuck-up blondes" who "looked down on me as an inferior man." There's all kinds of twisted shame and inferiority stuff going on. It's not at all "just about sex".
There is a lot of looks insecurity as well, friend of mine who used to read these forums mentioned there were quite a few moments where somebody posted a selfie and went 'am i too ugly to fuck'and they all went 'yes, you are far below average' or something like that. And the pictures always were of normal guys, some even looking above average. Delusion, negative reinforcement, and spite seems to be a running theme.
I agree. I think a huge portion of it is about status, which is not talked about much in the USA, so it goes unseen.
I often say that Chad's easy confidence comes from knowing he has a safety net and will always land on the side of those making the decisions whose job gets sent overseas. The group George Gilder called the "contenders" make good salaries and are smart, but they are not the ones deciding if their job gets sent overseas. They are (in my mind) still part of the precariat, high salaries or not.
Chad may not have done much to earn his safety net and connections, but his easy confidence comes from knowing that safety net and those connections are there. And Stacey senses it too. These upper middles with secure positions can sense the unease of strivers and they are closing ranks.
I think few know explicitly that this is what's going on, but the not-quite-as-worldly-wise engineer can't seem to win Stacey's respect and Chad's envy/scorekeeping points/respect and doesn't know quite why. Stacey may not know either, explicitly. Stacey knows Chad will always land with a mover-and-shaker job, while Ed the Engineer is at Chad's mercy on whether his job gets sent overseas/salary gets downward pressure.
This isn't fair, but it's how our society at least in the USA works. The gulf between working class and the upper middles with that safety net and those connections is widening, and there's less and less opportunity for those who fall into the precariat to build a secure life.
I'm not talking about solid working-class people here. Working class people know they're working class and aren't confused about status. I'm talking about the frustrated strivers. Stacey is part of what they are striving for, because of what she represents. She's striving too, to stay above the widening class abyss.
TL; DR: The upper middle class is closing ranks more and more as the bottom falls out beneath the rest of the classes in the USA. That's part of why Stacey won't date Ed the Engineer. Nobody spells it out except Barbara Ehrenreich.
Edited to cut an even dumber paragraph than the rest.
I think they might be meaning that those sorts of communities are very specific about having sex with "real" women (no prostitutes for example, and at times other random criteria too). So they probably wouldn't accept any potential sex-bots.
I like how if you are not reading closely you wouldn't realize she is covertly expanding her analogy of dating on university campuses to dating as a whole.
In the real world its lose-lose for women under the patriarchy. If women are the majority their value and ability to pull a high-quality man is diminished. If women are the minority their mate value increases and male familial figures will have a greater incentive to exercise control over them.
In India, the sex ratio is getting skewed to the point where men are in fact competing for women. Which in theory would increase women's bargaining power, BUT in reality it just increases the bargaining power of the patriarchal head of the woman.
During second-wave feminism, back in the 70's, I read that societies with more women compared to men are societies with more freedom and power for women. When women are scarce, men want to lock them down or something like that. When there are surplus women, due to war, for instance, supposedly women have it better because more of them can do their own thing or something like that.
Arguably the period after WW2 was one of the more regressive points for women in recent history though. Whatever gains were made during WW2 were lost until the 1970s at least.
Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the
mirror? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude
women in black and white
also because of sex robots, us ladies will miss out on a chance to
date world’s most desirable man:
an introverted engineer with Asperger’s syndrome who wasn’t sure how
to broach a conversation with a woman back in 2015 and definitely isn’t
sure how to do that in today’s climate
> an introverted engineer with Asperger’s syndrome who wasn’t sure how to broach a conversation with a woman back in 2015 and definitely isn’t sure how to do that in today’s climate
Sorkin is bad, but that line Zuck's girlfriend says as she dumps him is full of immortal wisdom: You are probably going to be a very successful computer person. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole.
There are plenty of geeks/nerds with engaging personalities who come across just fine and do just fine. There's a Youtuber who's the spitting image of Elliot Rodger and does hacks on electronic items (such as making a Roomba scream when it bumps into walls) but he's 1) hilarious and 2) he can REALLY talk. 3) Lots and lots of facial expressiveness/emotion. He's very engaging and that makes all the difference. He comes across, through his wit, as having a fair bit of worldly-wisdom...again, this makes all the difference. I feel bad for those on the autistim spectrum (I am too, a bit) but it's truly not about looks, height, or even social position (despite my earlier post about that). Geek guys can do just fine. It's the lack of being expressive/quick with words/a kind of worldly-wisdom that's the killer. (I suffer from that too, a bit)
I would just go to Antartica/surrounding islands to see penguins because penguins' lives are mentally simpler than humans; they have no real agency beside instinct and are utterly predictable. Oh to be a nonsentient animal
1) I can get aroused from talking to attractive women, but I remind my brain that is a primitive reaction
2) I know I should be straightforward but part of me doesn't want to
>How many teenaged boys would be able to build up the resentment to commit mass shootings or suicide if they had a beautiful sex robot at home?
You know, I agree with a lot of what she is saying but why does she have to say it like that...
Owning a robot, is going to be another form of classism or the “haves” and “have nots”.
Congratulations we have divided the world in another creepily odd specific way.
Is it the drugs I had earlier or is this post basically just
completely incomprehensible? Like, it’s not even just that I can barely
follow the logic, but even parsing the individual sentences feels
difficult. It’s like half the post is in a foreign language. There’s a
sentence I at least understand, and then suddenly via some bizarre
non-sequitur, incels!
Its not that well written and minders from point to point. I enjoy the fact that is just abruptly ends after stipulating that the reason extraterrestrials did not destroy or even send us a message because they are furiously masturbating and non-stop climaxing
That’s us guys. All we care about is getting off. There’s definitely nothing else someone might want from a relationship.
I’m also optimistic for GPT-23 to come along and obviate meatspace friends.
Futurama did it first:
https://vimeo.com/12915013
[deleted]
contains a spicy sneer:
also because of sex robots, us ladies will miss out on a chance to date world’s most desirable man:
what a tragedy.
My goodness, every time these dinguses try to comment on human sexuality, they end up showing their asses, as I believe the kids today call it.
Every time with the Michel Houellebecq, France’s greatest incel auteur.
Fuck off.
Didn’t shitheads like heartiste worry about this shit ages ago? E: right, david even has a whole category about it.
Feel free to sneer at this equally, but uh…
Some child doesn’t have to go to school and get a job
Some person doesn’t have to die staring at a hospital ceiling
Is it the drugs I had earlier or is this post basically just completely incomprehensible? Like, it’s not even just that I can barely follow the logic, but even parsing the individual sentences feels difficult. It’s like half the post is in a foreign language. There’s a sentence I at least understand, and then suddenly via some bizarre non-sequitur, incels!
Ignores gay and bi men at that
russy
oh my god how far back does the conspiracy go
“I suck at human interactions and can’t imagine genuinely wanting to have children, therefore everyone else is just like me”.