Uncanny Vulvas
Most of the articles written about sexbots are by feminists (or contain quotes by feminists) who make transparently silly claims that these toys promote "objectification" and "rape culture." Feminists have long made similar arguments about pornography and prostitution despite evidence suggesting the opposite is true.
The actual reason for feminist hostility to sex robots (as well as porn and prostitution) is not difficult to discern: as Fleischman notes, women have forever been concerned with "governing male desire." This is why it has always been women who most suppress female sexuality (in the form of slut shaming etc., to the more extreme forms). Social scientist Roy Baumeister compared female suppression of female sexuality to a cartel keeping prices artificially high. While feminists demand that men give up every form of power they have traditionally wielded over women they show no interest in eliminating or even lessening female forms of power over men.
Fleischman's article is noteworthy not just because of its honesty but because it is sympathetic to men. I've seen comments online by women expressing sympathy for sex robots -- that's right, inanimate objects -- while showing no sympathy whatsoever for eg the disabled flesh-and-blood men who might make use of such devices.
Of course the ultimate fear is that these robots may soon become so advanced that they will be coveted even by "high value" men. At that point, women will have to engage in significantly more competition in order to secure mates and even -- horror of horrors -- lower their standards to something half-way reasonable.
The most hilarious outcome would be if women were forced to become the pursuers, asking men out on dates and proving their utility. I remember watching a reality TV show where women had to go into a bar and buy men drinks. Several were turned down. One woman described it as the "worst day of her life". Welcome to equality.
In truth I can't imagine a world in which that sort of gender flip occurs. Women are not pursuing men in Japan despite the massive "grass-eater" phenomenon. Instead, when sexbots become sufficiently advanced, women will do everything in their power to criminalize them. They may even attempt to do so via "Artificial Intelligence rights" or some other conceit. While some would argue that there is simply too much money to be made by sexbots for criminalization to be plausible, consider how much money is made by drugs and prostitution. Black markets are beneficial not only to organized crime and intelligence agencies but the state authorities who use criminal gangs to justify increases in their own budgets and power.
What do you think? What is the most likely outcome of advanced sexbot and/or virtual reality technology?
Edit:
After re-reading the article I wanted to highlight this passage:
The average single man paying attention to contemporary social fashions will struggle to understand the new rules of meeting, courting, or having sex with women. Something as banal as trying to converse with a woman wearing headphones is now often considered harassment. A man’s chances of mating success increase when he approaches many women [this also explains catcalling -- now a hate crime in some European countries -- which is performed by mostly lower class men], but so too do his chances of a gaining reputation as sexist, exploitative, or immoral. To take a fraught example, how does a man know that a woman is genuinely consenting to sex? A lack of ability to pick up on cues can incur catastrophic costs.
So this is yet another example of how feminists are digging their own graves, or at least the graves of ordinary women who don't hate men and don't magically regress from strong empowered womyn to damsel in distress when some guy they don't fancy asks them out on a date (most of the quasi-alpha feminists don't either -- they're just exploiting the male protective instinct to amass ever more power). The more feminists turn courtship into a criminal or even life-destroying offense for men, the higher the demand will be for alternatives among men, the more speedily men will actually (and incredibly) develop alternatives. These alternative will eventually resemble Star Trek-like sexbots and VR, which in turn will put an end to feminism.
The circle of life, I guess.
[–]bufedad 22 points23 points24 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]Wisemanner 10 points11 points12 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]shit-zen-giggles 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]heimdahl81 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mgtow-slacktivist 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]Il1281 points [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link
AI is badly needed. It's not sex that men need it's the intimacy and bonding that they need.
[+]Vwar1 points [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link
Yeah, I think that's one of the many things feminists overlook or intentionally ignore when they talk about sex and male desire. They attribute to men a sort of oafish, bestial tendency: apparently we want to bust a nut and nothing more.
Even Norah Vincent, the lesbian who spent several months living as a man, came to the same wrong-headed conclusion. On the one hand she noticed that (a) men are not remotely "privileged" and (b) men are actually very supportive and warm toward one another in their male-only groups; on the other hand, after watching the longing, sex-starved faces of men at strip clubs, she concluded that male sexuality is comparatively bestial and lacking in emotion.
This is clearly false, as any non-psychopathic male can attest. So can any number of female prostitutes who have written about their experiences. They note that men often want to connect with them, talk about their lives and troubles without being judged, and in some cases just engage in non-sexual (or semi-sexual) touching.
Reducing male sexuality to a bodily function -- which is what feminists do when they talk about "male sexual entitlement" -- is obscene. It eclipses their humanity and their desire for love and emotional intimacy.
It would be like claiming that women are only interested in money and social status in a relationship.
If anything, when it comes to romance, men are more romantic while women are more coldly rational and mercenary. It's counter-intuitive (as gender issues so often are) but probably true.
One controversial claim propagated in the "manosphere" is that "falling in love" is very different for men and women. Men develop a sense of devotion akin to the way women feel about their children, whereas when women fall in love it is based more on how a man makes her feel about herself. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, because it served the interests of human survival for women to be more picky and selfish and capricious in their relationships, and for men to be more honorable, devotional and sacrificial.
There's an unintentionally hilarious line in the Koran that reads:
"‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands."
So evidently at a time when men supposedly ruled women with an iron fist and women were mere "chattel", women still nagged their husbands and called them deadbeats when they failed to deliver the (ahem) bacon.
And as is often the case we find modern scientists confirming the wisdom of ancient texts. So the social anthropologist Robert Briffault wrote:
"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191
While acknowledging exceptions on both sides (perhaps even a very large number of exceptions) this does have a ring of truth to it. It explains why a man can work like a mule supporting his family for twenty or thirty years, attending to his partner's every material desire, but if he suddenly fails to provide value he will to tossed aside like an old shoe. Conversely, many men are literally willing to die for their spouses even when they grow old and fat. You can even see this in love songs. Eg Bryan Adams "I will die for you" vs. Shania Twain "That don't impress me much." With many women it's all about what you have you done for me lately? (again, plenty of exceptions on both sides)
Women reading this may think I'm casting aspersions against their sex, but I'm really not. If anything, acknowledging biological impulses (not mandates, but impulses) will reduce both misogyny and misandry because it helps us understand one another. I don't blame men like myself for being attracted to young, beautiful women, and I don't blame women for being attracted to men who show indicators of strength and social status. Do we blame cats for playing with mice, even though it seems unnecessarily cruel? (it only seems that way because we fail to account the need for cats to develop their reflexes).
I think men have done a pretty good job of trying to empathize with women. Too good a job, in fact. But I think women have done a piss poor job of empathizing with men. Perhaps this too is rooted in biology -- but if the empathy gap is insurmountable, if it can't be bridged and men's rights supported -- then I'm afraid we'll have to conclude that ancient philosophers like Socrates were right:
"Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior."
If men en masse come to this conclusion, the "gender war" will be over within about 48 hours, and that will be the end of women's rights. I personally have faith that if enough men speak out, and if enough women stop supporting feminism (if only by not remaining silent -- silence is complicity) we may be able to achieve some degree of gender equality that will be best for all concerned.
[–]AbyssinianLion 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PIG_CUNT 2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PIG_CUNT 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]PIG_CUNT -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vwar[S] 4 points5 points6 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MRA-automatron-2kb 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]PIG_CUNT 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link