Feminists seek to ban sex-bots

Reddit View
January 4, 2013

Post Information
Title Feminists seek to ban sex-bots
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 6
Comments 6
Date 04 January 2013 10:47 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/174809
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/15z4js/feminists_seek_to_ban_sexbots/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
the red pillfeminist

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Just another example of the feminine imperative using its feminism arm to continue maximizing their strategy. Less choices for men = more choices for women.

"[Feminists] want any sexbot that looks under 18 to be banned .. under the pretence of virtual child pornography laws... Never mind that such ultra-realistic androids would surely prevent ‘paedophiles’ from having the urge to have sex with real minors."

I really liked this part, because it doesn't even make sense to ban them.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

But hold on a moment. If an ‘image’ now includes the three-dimensional shape of a sex doll or a sex bot, then surely the multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry is going to go bankrupt overnight? Given that most teenage girls are fully developed at age 16 or 17 these days, an image of a person looking under 18 must include any woman who attempts to make her skin or her body as youthful and as perfect as possible .... Ulrika Johnsonn, recently paid over £50,000 to ‘have the body of a 16 year old girl’. Now why isn’t she in prison being raped by butch lesbians for ‘creating the sexual image of a person under the age of 18′? This is the logic that follows from the creation of these absurd feminist laws designed to restrict sexual competition to themselves in a widened free sexual market – in other words, the rape of the male.

[–]dreamingawake092 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

With their logic, we might as well send a bill up to ban vibrators, dildos, and any other sexual device that a woman can use that doesn't require a man. I know a bill like that won't ever pass, but to even know that there are people in the world that would attempt to put forth a bill like that is just mind-blowing, and not in the good way.

[–]Pecanpig1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That probably wouldn't even be as bad, considering how one sided sex drives seem to be.

[–]RedHonest1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Man...it doesn't even sense. I think the red pill interpretation is sound.

Consider it from the feminist perspective: I thought they were upset about the objectification of real women? The objectification of sex bots makes sense...they're objects, we treat them as objects.

Are feminists defending the rights of anything that looks like a woman now?

I have a female friend who is big on the idea that we should be judged on our inner beauty. I objected that if we were to judge everyone on their inner beauty, then I would have even less to admire than their outer appearance. With a lot of hot women...well, at least they're hot.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Are feminists defending the rights of anything that looks like a woman now?

As usual with women you have to not only listen to what they say, you have to watch what they do and how they react. Based on the reactions here, I'd say a number of things have unwittingly been unveiled...

Pick any which apply:

  • The freudian slip admission that women see themselves as only being useful objects.

  • Confession that they see men as only useful objects to be used to fulfill their desires.

  • Revelation of deep projection of how women see themselves\us with the expectation that we also see them in this manner.

  • All of the above.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2021. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter