In a recent post, we learned that flesh-and-blood women only have about ten years left before they are made obsolete by sexy lady robots. Just so you ladies know what you're up against, here are some videos showing what state-of-the art sexy lady robots can do already. As you can see, Roxxxy here, a sexbot from True Companion LLC, can turn her head like Linda Blair in the Exorcist and mechanically banter with non-robot men using a variety of canned phrases that sound a lot like what a perpetually dateless non-robot man might imagine a sexy lady would say if ever one deigned to speak to him. And, as you can see in the second video, she can wiggle seductively. So you non-robotic gals better step up your game, and fast, if you want to survive the sexbotapocalypse.
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
So you non-robotic gals better step up your game, and fast, if you want to survive the sexbotapocalypse. If that truly WAS every man's idea of what a true companion should be, rather than stepping up my game, I'd prefer NOT to survive the sexbotapocalypse.
I see this as a way for men who either can't attract a woman or is choosing to stay away from women to satisfy their physical needs without the use of prostitution. I would think feminists would love this.
It basically is the equivilant of a giant vibrator, and I know most feminists feel such equiptment empowers women so they do not need a man.
Remember when Real Dolls were announced and we all thought that was kind of creepy? And how now we know better? Actually it's all kind of creepy, and if Biscuit Queen has any problems with that, she should know that plenty of commenters at feminist-themed blogs will rain the same kind of judgment down upon women who buy those realistic looking baby dolls. The baby dolls are probably a better comparison to this than vibrators, since most women don't project their need for companionship on their vibrators. Mine doesn't even have a name:)
Dr. Deeze, hey these guys aren't the kind of guys exploiting people on the whole. (...right...?) Different market... please tell me it's a different market...
That would be great though if fembots could replace the exploited women and children. That would be wonderful. And don't think they wouldn't make little girl and boy bots and baby bots for these MEN if this were the case. It's amazing how many men like to rape children. It's pretty astounding.
Dr. Deezee: I don't think these sexbots will really cut down on human trafficking; dolls/sexbots are costly; you can rent a human body for much less cash.
Also, sadly enough, there are some men who enjoy causing pain and humiliation to women or children during sexual acts. Sexbots would not satisfy these men.
Comparing it to those baby dolls is a very good comparision.
I do remember reading posts on mra boards mocking the childless women that buy them, Hopefully the mra responding to this blog will see the comparision, and understand that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I have no problem with these "perfect companions" because I do understand that they will be used by a small subset of men who have no choice in the matter because of poor social skills. But much like the real baby dolls the reality is normal people have a hard time not making fun of people like that!
Interesting though that they are compared to vibrators, this is not a comparison. Vibrators can be compared to pocket pussies, when viabrators start talking back and are sold as companions then you can compare.
I do wonder though being that mra like to say that feminists are lonely and can't get a man, why a male version hasn't been put out?
"Tranny" is a really awful slur, and there is nothing inherently grotesque or wrong with transgender individuals, transsexuals, intersex peoples, or genderqueer individuals. Don't drag a whole group of people--who have nothing to do with this issue--through the mud.
I just looked at your profile, and it looks as though you self-identify that way. I apologise for being abrupt--obviously it is fine if you self-identify as a tranny, but a lot of people are really hurt and marginalised by that word if it is not the one they choose for themselves. Also, the media tend to use that word as a slur--a way of diminishing trans/z peoples' lives and experiences. I get that it can be reclaimed, the way of 'queer' and 'faggot,' but it still burns the eyes a little.
I think only a very small minority of the whole male population of the whole world would be interested in getting one of these things. I am not sure if David is sort of making this as a MRA thing or just attempting to bash and intimidate men in general as that's the typical feminist way.
Or it could be that David knows that it's getting tiring to show random comments from random people in mra sites that are mostly just shock jocks (mostly not serious people who are serious about men's rights) looking for offensive humour anyway. So he has resorted to this piece
Sorry switch. Don't mean to offend. Just trying to be funny. I know it is a slur to many, although I personally don't mind if someone calls me a tranny.
nick, this post is a followup to one in which I quoted a guy who is convinced sexbots will make women obsolete, a position that is 1) ludicrous, 2) insulting to women and 3)but so ludicrous that it's really not actually insulting to women, but a reason to mock the guy putting forth that argument.
And as some people have pointed out, the (creepy) guys behind this sexbot envision her not just as a sex toy but as a "companion." Which is, again, a bit creepy.
As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism. They are a minority, but they're out there, and a version of this argument was made in The Misandry Bubble, a stupid but very influential and widely cited MRA/MGTOW manifesto. So I'm not making up an MRA connection. It's there, and was there long before I even thought of this blog.
I want a fembot. There was a tranz girl who wanted to hypnotize me into become a human fembot. I will go see if I can find the emails. They were pretty hilarious.
Here is one of the emails this girlio sent me. She called herself PlasticDoll. She was tranz, and very cute.
8/24/09: "...that pic of you on the street corner. It would be unfortunate if I mesmerized you while walking past have you follow me only to become my robot..."
Wow, Avpd0. It's not often you see a fantasy vision of the future that uses the phrase "more first date anal." I also found the phrase "too poor to afford real women" kind of revealing. Of course, as everywhere on the internet, the comments are even crazier. I especially like the guy who claims "The matriarchy already restricts/regulates male sexuality through IMBRA and various other outlets."
IMBRA. We're restricting his sexuality by allowing women he met through a bridal agency to have access to the results of his background check and some information about her rights written in a language she can understand. And apparently it's not even that good of a background check. Or maybe he doesn't like that IMBRA limits you to two fiance visas? It make the return policy more of a hassle, that's for sure.
To kysokisaen: Many MRAs are closeted gay, Jack Donovan, who wrote for the Spearhead is a gay activist. Many PUAs are closeted gay, they become PUAs to prove to themselves and the others they are not gay. Many people think that Citizen Renegade (Roissy) is a closeted gay. That probably explain the phrase "more first date anal."
Most MRAs/PUAs are low-status or very poor and they want women out of their leagues. That's why they go to third world countries. That explain the phrase "too poor to afford real women".
I don't know, if women had to vie for sex like men do, they life size man dolls would be in much higher demand.
I do not see an issue with this and I fail to see how it is misogynistic to figure out how to get one's needs met when the other gender is making it so costly.
David: “nick, this post is a followup to one in which I quoted a guy who is convinced sexbots will make women obsolete, a position that is 1) ludicrous, 2) insulting to women and 3)but so ludicrous that it's really not actually insulting to women, but a reason to mock the guy putting forth that argument. “
So, one person said this, and you’ve equated it to the entire MRA? I can’t seem to find a single MRA justifying or supporting this idea in ether of your two articles. I do see many feminists discussing how the fact MRA’s (IE, more then the one you quoted?) are disturbing and creepy for wanting this, and how it’s far more likely women could do without men then the other way around.
David: “As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism.”
And feminists have been saying the same thing of men for a long time (IE: women need men like a fish needs a bicycle). Difference is, for some reason, science has been funding methods to make feminists dreams come true (cloning, making sperm of bone marrow, etc)… Which view do you find more dangerous, the fringe crazies advocating robot lovers or the funded, scientific replacement of men?
David: “a version of this argument was made in The Misandry Bubble, a stupid but very influential and widely cited MRA/MGTOW manifesto.”
That wouldn’t be anything like The SCUM Manifesto, would it?
David: “It's there, and was there long before I even thought of this blog.”
Then it’s fair to say that hatred towards men is an integral part of feminism based on the relation to the SCUM Manifesto? And just to note, that was published (not just an internet blog) back in 1968 and made into a movie in 1976, suggesting she was far more then a fringe member of feminism.
Avpd0: “Many MRAs are closeted gay”
You make a lot of judgements about “most” MRA’s based on only a handful of comments. Yes, so MRA’s are gay, several are openly gay in fact. Does that make them any less men, or any less deserving of a voice (based on your attitude, as well as N.O.W.’s complete inaction when the nations of the U.N. voted to remove sexual orientation from a resolution condemning summary and arbitrary executions, it would appear the feminists believe yes, they are less deserving of a voice.)?
Avpd0: “Many MRAs are fascinated by sexbots “ and “Most MRAs/PUAs are low-status or very poor and they want women out of their leagues. “
Are you this judgmental about everyone, or just people you don’t like? In two posts you have managed to define what most MRA’s are three time, based solely on … what, three people?
kratch, clearly you don't read before you post, but if you read my post and my comment above you will see that I very explicitly don't equate sexbots-will-destroy-feminism MRAs with all MRAs.
Hint: pay special attention to this phrase in my comment: "They are a minority, but they're out there"
"kratch, clearly you don't read before you post, but if you read my post and my comment above you will see that I very explicitly don't equate sexbots-will-destroy-feminism MRAs with all MRAs."
You don't differentiate the two, instead, you clearly spelled out "a connection to MRA"s".
"As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism."
As this is in direct response to nick's comment:
"I am not sure if David is sort of making this as a MRA thing or just attempting to bash and intimidate men in general as that's the typical feminist way."
then it stands to reason, given your directly making the connection, that you are making it an MRA Thing.
"Hint: pay special attention to this phrase in my comment: "They are a minority, but they're out there""
If it is just a minority (I think even this is overstating things considerably), then that does not produce an MRA connection, any more then there is a connection between being an MRA/feminist and being homosexual, simply because a minority of MRA's/Feminists also happen to be gay/lesbian.
I'm curious, do you always assume first and foremost that people can't read before you post a reply? Is that the default setting for you? IE, If someone doesn't agree with you, then they are somehow mentally challenged?
I don't assume people can't read. I assume (when someone completely misses the point and attributes things to me that I haven't said) that they've probably just skimmed what I wrote instead of actually reading it.
Nick is the one who brought up MRAs. I responded by noting, correctly, that some MRAs do in fact think that sexbots will destroy feminism. This does not mean that all MRAs think this, or that it is necessary to think this in order to be an MRA. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying, but it is really no more complicated than: some MRAs, a minority of them, think that sexbots will destroy feminism.
If you were to say, some feminists are lesbians, I would have to say, yes, some are.
"Nick is the one who brought up MRAs. I responded by noting, correctly, that some MRAs do in fact think that sexbots will destroy feminism. "
Nick asked a question as to whether you were trying to attribute this to MRA's. Your response was to spell out the connection. Claim all you want that you aren't responsible, that someone else is to blame, and then look down and try and discredit or shame whoever attempts to hold you accountable. That is what "some" feminists do best, is it not?
Kratch, I really have no idea what you are on about. Everything I have said has been completely straightforward here: Some, not all, MRAs, have convinced themselves that sexbots will destroy feminism. That's what I said above, and that's what I say now.
And how does that answer nick's question... "Are you trying to attribute this as an MRA thing?", Other then to say "yes, it is an MRA thing because some (not all) MRA's believe it to be the case"... but this answer still makes it an MRA thing when it isn't. MRA's, in large part, don't believe this any more then I suspect "most" Feminists don't believe consensual sex is rape (Do you consider yourself a rapist David? or perhaps your celibate so as not to be one?). If the answer to nicks question was no, then there would be no need to mention MRA's at all, let alone spell out a direct connection.
Now, if you decided to instead, quote him and then answer a completely different question, then perhaps you should stop accusing others of not being able to read. hmm?
"Some, not all, MRAs, have convinced themselves that sexbots will destroy feminism."
The primary emotional reason behind the rise of feminism in the 19th century was the feeling that big industry had commoditized the contributions of women. If the nurturing qualities of women could be purchased rather than being the sole domain of a woman in her home, then commerce and technology were rendering women to be irrelevant. They could go to work in a factory, and be reduced in value to that of a lemming, because their former role could now be outsourced. More than 100 years later, feminism had morphed into a left wing entitlement movement based on the myth that it was men -- not industrialization -- that robbed women of their identity. Women bought that myth, and increasingly entered the workforce under the assumption that this was liberating to them, never realizing that the original emotional appeal of feminism was to fight the commoditization of women and preserve their distinctiveness, so that women could be appreciated for the unique nurturing role that they played.
After three waves of feminism, and various triumphant feminist screeds, men are now feeling unappreciated and they too are now made to feel that they have no unique or distinct value to offer society. Technology and industry have rendered men -- like the women over a century ago -- to feel irrelevant.
So it's no surprise that some men -- the ones mentioned in David's post here, rare as they are -- are looking to sexbots as a solution. They think that if they can be made to feel rejected and irrelevant, well then, they will use technology to reject women too. It's a "fighting fire with fire" mentality, but it won't end well. Loss of gender identity is the problem (although today, feminists seem to think that it is the solution). The true solution is for women to rediscover their nurturing qualities, for men to rediscover what makes them truly unique and valuable to society -- such as their ability to build and take risks, and for both sexes to kick feminism to the curb.
Are you kidding me? Try watching the movie Who shot Andy Warhol released by liberals feminists and then get back to me how you can consider her insane diary to be main stream feminism in any way.
I assume she is taught in woman studies as a question as to why she did the things she did. Much the same as Marc Lepine would be studied.
I have a book about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's views on why she started up with the Women Rights Movement and it had little to do with the commoditization of traditional women's work. It had a heck of a lot more to due with her getting mad at the way she was viewed by the men in her life.
It was the anti-feminists that started up with the cult of domesticity...the feminists wanted equal footing with men.
@Elizabeth, Don't forget that out one side of their mouths comes the "women's uniqueness in their nurturing role" while out the other side comes the "women are NOT unique in the nurturing department, in fact, men nurture as much if not moreso and this goes unrecognized".
If women were unique in anything back in the 19th century, it was for their "hysteria", a mental disorder stemming from sexual dissatisfaction. Since it was a well-known "fact" that women did not have sexual urges, they "endured" sex for procreation only, the first vibrators were not seen as sexual devices but, rather, medical ones, to help alleviate the symptoms of a mental disease unique to women.
"I have a book about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's views on why she started up with the Women Rights Movement and it had little to do with the commoditization of traditional women's work."
I too have a book. It's a book that David Futrelle is in love with, a book written by the feminist author Gerda Lerner. Seems like your book is at odds with my book:
"The Creation of Patriarchy" by Gerda Lerner Appendix: Definitions Page 241: "On the other hand it was easier for women to maintain a sense of self-worth, because they so obviously shared the world and its tasks with men. Certainly this was so in pre-industrial society, when the complementarity of men and women's economic efforts was clearly visible. It was more difficult to maintain a sense of self-worth in industrial society, because of the complexity of the technological world in which men operated and because of the commodity nature of all market transactions... It is no accident that worldwide, feminist movements begin only after industrialization."
Yes, being that this is a feminist author there is some dogma mixed in there, but Lerner does hit on a genuine reality when she ties the rise of feminism to the commoditization of women due to industrialization. I've weighed in on this already in my comment above.
"Don't forget that out one side of their mouths comes the 'women's uniqueness in their nurturing role' while out the other side comes the 'women are NOT unique in the nurturing department, in fact, men nurture as much if not moreso and this goes unrecognized'."
If women try to justify the use of force and coercion by citing their nurturing capabilities, saying that men should have a minimal role in their childrens' lives following a divorce and that this somehow necessitates sole custody for mothers, maximized child support obligations for fathers, and a total loss (or near-total) of legal and physical parenting rights for fathers, then I call foul. I've known of men who were legally prohibited from even waving to their children from across the street, lest they be imprisoned for using "intimidation;" all along the child voiced his inquiry to the mother about why daddy somehow didn't care.
Women may have a unique role to play, but that doesn't mean that fatherhood should be subsumed to the wishes of the mother in the event of a divorce -- especially when State-sanctioned violence is her tool of power and control over the father. For fit and non-violent fathers, THAT kind of State control -- at the mother's behest -- is completely unjustified.
The bot looks odd and maybe makes some people think "man" or "trans" because her neck is so thick. Not much different from the neck of a ventriloquist's dummy. And like most efforts to duplicate human movement, it's too smooth and looks totally robotic.
Those fake babies are weird, sure, but they're less creepy than these sexbots because they aren't supposed to stand in for a fully formed human being with an actual personality and brain and so on.
I have a friend who has a couple of the babies. They're just fun to have around and hold, if you like babies. She's under no delusion that it's real or can actually respond in a meaningful way.
First of all, contrary to MRA claims, the societal model of the 1950's America, in which a significant number of married women concentrated solely on housework and raising children is an anomaly, not the norm. While post-war American prosperity made it possible for a short while, for most of history, this would be an impermissible luxury for the overwhelming majority of couples, with the exception of the aristocracy, royalty, and the richest mercantile families. For most of history and throughout most of society, women worked and earned an income for the family. Peasant women planted and harvested, took care of cattle and spun wool, generating income for the family, whereas wives of artisans and tradesmen almost invariably worked in their husbands' businesses as assistants, secretaries, laborers, etc.
And thus, as terrible as the Industrial Revolution was for the poor in many respects, this "commodification" of women's labor was actually an improvement, because it finally put monetary value, however small, on women's labor.
What early feminists objected to wasn't this "commodification" (let's be frank: remuneration) of women's labor, but on the contrary, social prejudices that denied credit to women's work. They objected to the system of social prejudices that required a woman to work her ass off in her husband's business, while everyone pretended that he is the "sole breadwinner".
They objected to laws which gave men unfettered access to their wives' earnings and assets, so that if a woman had any, the effect of marriage was to essentially bankrupt her.
They objected to laws which denied married women any control or or benefit from things created by their labor, while vesting such control in their husbands -- such as female writers having no publishing rights to their own works.
They objected to laws and social mores which held women to an extremely stringent standard of virtue, while allowing boys to be boys. Anti-feminists always mischaracterize this complaint as a desire by feminists to empower women to engage in promiscuity. In fact, all feminists with whose views I am familiar object also to the prejudices that lead people of both genders to compulsively pursue joyless, meaningless, punitive sex. What those early feminists objected to, however, was a society in which a woman could be utterly disgraced and financially ruined because of a mere suspicion of a single indiscretion -- but a woman would have no legal or social recourse whatsoever against a husband who cheated on her, gave her venereal diseases, spent money on prostitutes, and forced her to care for his children fathered with other women.
They objected to a society in which abortion was illegal, but wives were expected to have sex with their husbands at any time and in any way the husbands wanted -- and to "take care" of unwanted pregnancies by breaking the law. It's really shocking to study social trends before the legalization of abortion -- how vociferous men were in wanting to keep it illegal, and how naturally they expected their wives to have multiple abortions to serve their convenience. Until quite recently, to be a married woman was to be criminal -- that was a far greater concern to early feminists than the supposed inhumanity of being paid for work.
They objected to a society in which men's privileges over women had the force of law, but their obligations towards women did not.
They objected to a society that gave women no opportunity to pursue education, professions and financial independence, instead forcing all women into the same mold regardless of intelligence or aptitude.
I don't want to kick feminism to the curb. I enjoy having access to employment, education and a variety of other things men take for granted. Now women who have nothing to lose, on the other hand -- they might have a different idea, but then, they don't speak for me.
Again John, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton book has her actual words and what they say is "I was mad at my male relatives and friends for not considering I was their equal."
It was the anti-feminists of the 19th century that actually reflect what the 20th century feminist was talking about more than the feminists like Stanton.
@D: David choose to bring up the writings of one "stupid" MRA manifesto as evidence against all. I see there being no difference between a web blog and a handful of fanatics reading and agreeing with it, vs a published work, and a handful of fanatics buying and supporting it. Read the context in which I brought it up before attacking me for even mentioning it. But if you don't like the SCUM Manifesto, perhaps the Redstocking manifesto would be more appropriate?
Amused's last post must have been caught in the spam filter for a while, as I didn't notice it before now. What she says in the first paragraph made me think of a book that some folks here might like to look into, if they have not done so already: The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap
@amused, "the societal model of the 1950's America, in which a significant number of married women concentrated solely on housework and raising children is an anomaly, not the norm" Er, not, it isn't an anomaly, it is a fiction. Poor women, in particular women of color, have always traditionally done labour outside of the home. My grandfather's sisters did farm labour and piece work (his youngest sister only did the latter as she was very ill and died young, likely of leukemia). I know plenty of women that age who would not see that as anything similar to their reality. The only women in my family that I can think of who lived at that time and did not do some sort of paid work were those for whom it was literally unavailable (my paternal grandmother is Cherokee and unemployment rates are extremely high for native american reservations) and they suffered hard for it. I grew up in a poor rural area and some of the most sexist old men used the term 'hard working woman' as a compliment. So, no, this fifties nostalgia is not one of reality for anyone but a tiny fraction of the white upperclass. In reality, fifties America was one of bitter segregation, starvation, and deaths due to no medical care. My home area did not even have electricty or running water until the sixties and Johnson's "War on Poverty". Even then, my mother was born in 64 and she remembers a time when a fair share of people she knew did not have one or the other. The fifties were only good for a tiny sliver of the population, that is upperclass white men with upperclass white women picking up a few crumbs (though they had no reproductive rights, could be legally raped by the spouses, did not have equal access to either primary or secondary education, etc.)
Wow, that is so life like. I do not know how us women will compete.
ReplyDeleteDoes it also spew pea soup barf?
What are sex-starved dweebs going to do, though, when the sexbots emasculate them by beating them at Jeopardy?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/14/ibm_watson_jeopardy_dry_run/
So you non-robotic gals better step up your game, and fast, if you want to survive the sexbotapocalypse.
ReplyDeleteIf that truly WAS every man's idea of what a true companion should be, rather than stepping up my game, I'd prefer NOT to survive the sexbotapocalypse.
The user reviews are very positive.
ReplyDeleteRoxxxy looks like a tranny.
ReplyDeleteI don't even want to click on those videos.
ReplyDeleteI see this as a way for men who either can't attract a woman or is choosing to stay away from women to satisfy their physical needs without the use of prostitution. I would think feminists would love this.
ReplyDeleteIt basically is the equivilant of a giant vibrator, and I know most feminists feel such equiptment empowers women so they do not need a man.
Is it bad for men to have the same thing?
It basically is the equivilant of a giant vibrator
ReplyDeleteIt's different from a vibrator in two ways:
1. the robot itself is really creepy.
2. the fact that it's being sold as a companion (something you can have a relationship with) is really creepy.
Remember when Real Dolls were announced and we all thought that was kind of creepy? And how now we know better? Actually it's all kind of creepy, and if Biscuit Queen has any problems with that, she should know that plenty of commenters at feminist-themed blogs will rain the same kind of judgment down upon women who buy those realistic looking baby dolls. The baby dolls are probably a better comparison to this than vibrators, since most women don't project their need for companionship on their vibrators. Mine doesn't even have a name:)
ReplyDeleteHere is a thought for the men thinking about going to get one of these lovelies...what if it malfunctions during sex?
ReplyDelete"I would think feminists would love this."
ReplyDeleteI do actually. I find it hilarious.
Hey, it'll help cut back on human trafficking, right? Should make booboonation happy.
ReplyDeleteThere is documentary on Youtube about guys that have Realdolls :
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNFUCF3qBAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_nreFIczU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxQsvWXdh8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS_VQrVLmTs
Dr. Deeze, hey these guys aren't the kind of guys exploiting people on the whole. (...right...?)
ReplyDeleteDifferent market... please tell me it's a different market...
That would be great though if fembots could replace the exploited women and children. That would be wonderful. And don't think they wouldn't make little girl and boy bots and baby bots for these MEN if this were the case. It's amazing how many men like to rape children. It's pretty astounding.
Now I'm sad again.
Dr. Deezee: I don't think these sexbots will really cut down on human trafficking; dolls/sexbots are costly; you can rent a human body for much less cash.
ReplyDeleteAlso, sadly enough, there are some men who enjoy causing pain and humiliation to women or children during sexual acts. Sexbots would not satisfy these men.
I can't handle this at all. Is there a widget that could filter out the robogina posts for me?
ReplyDeleteComparing it to those baby dolls is a very good comparision.
ReplyDeleteI do remember reading posts on mra boards mocking the childless women that buy them, Hopefully the mra responding to this blog will see the comparision, and understand that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I have no problem with these "perfect companions" because I do understand that they will be used by a small subset of men who have no choice in the matter because of poor social skills. But much like the real baby dolls the reality is normal people have a hard time not making fun of people like that!
Interesting though that they are compared to vibrators, this is not a comparison. Vibrators can be compared to pocket pussies, when viabrators start talking back and are sold as companions then you can compare.
I do wonder though being that mra like to say that feminists are lonely and can't get a man, why a male version hasn't been put out?
@ magdelyn
ReplyDelete"Tranny" is a really awful slur, and there is nothing inherently grotesque or wrong with transgender individuals, transsexuals, intersex peoples, or genderqueer individuals. Don't drag a whole group of people--who have nothing to do with this issue--through the mud.
http://thegenderblenderblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/tranny-is-a-form-of-hate-speech/
I just looked at your profile, and it looks as though you self-identify that way. I apologise for being abrupt--obviously it is fine if you self-identify as a tranny, but a lot of people are really hurt and marginalised by that word if it is not the one they choose for themselves. Also, the media tend to use that word as a slur--a way of diminishing trans/z peoples' lives and experiences. I get that it can be reclaimed, the way of 'queer' and 'faggot,' but it still burns the eyes a little.
ReplyDeletehttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091220003950AABM7Ik
I think only a very small minority of the whole male population of the whole world would be interested in getting one of these things. I am not sure if David is sort of making this as a MRA thing or just attempting to bash and intimidate men in general as that's the typical feminist way.
ReplyDeleteOr it could be that David knows that it's getting tiring to show random comments from random people in mra sites that are mostly just shock jocks (mostly not serious people who are serious about men's rights) looking for offensive humour anyway. So he has resorted to this piece
ReplyDelete@switchintoglide
ReplyDeleteSorry switch. Don't mean to offend. Just trying to be funny. I know it is a slur to many, although I personally don't mind if someone calls me a tranny.
nick, this post is a followup to one in which I quoted a guy who is convinced sexbots will make women obsolete, a position that is 1) ludicrous, 2) insulting to women and 3)but so ludicrous that it's really not actually insulting to women, but a reason to mock the guy putting forth that argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd as some people have pointed out, the (creepy) guys behind this sexbot envision her not just as a sex toy but as a "companion." Which is, again, a bit creepy.
As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism. They are a minority, but they're out there, and a version of this argument was made in The Misandry Bubble, a stupid but very influential and widely cited MRA/MGTOW manifesto. So I'm not making up an MRA connection. It's there, and was there long before I even thought of this blog.
I want a fembot. There was a tranz girl who wanted to hypnotize me into become a human fembot. I will go see if I can find the emails. They were pretty hilarious.
ReplyDeleteHere is one of the emails this girlio sent me. She called herself PlasticDoll. She was tranz, and very cute.
ReplyDelete8/24/09: "...that pic of you on the street corner. It would be unfortunate if I mesmerized you while walking past have you follow me only to become my robot..."
Just for the sake of equality, they do have a man version.
ReplyDeletemagdelyn, you need this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Look-Into-My-Eyes-Hypnosis/dp/1440449864/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1295247280&sr=8-2
Then you can create a whole fembot army.
It's just a vision I have, David. Maybe, one day, we and my fembot army will come to satiate the masses.
ReplyDeleteDr. Deezee: Wouldn't cutting back on human trafficking make everyone happy? I would hope so.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Roxxxy is SO interesting! I mean she likes everything you like! Wow... Now you don't have to be bothered with stimulating conversation!
ReplyDeleteAnother use for sex dolls.... Riding the floodwaters (an open gender event it seems)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theage.com.au/victoria/river-rescue-as-sex-toy-ditches-rider-20110117-19sra.html
Many MRAs are fascinated by sexbots. Citizen Renegade made four postings praising them:
ReplyDeletehttp://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/sexbots/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/sexbot-update/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/sexbot-armies-gather-on-the-horizon/
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/sexbot-update-2/
Wow, Avpd0. It's not often you see a fantasy vision of the future that uses the phrase "more first date anal." I also found the phrase "too poor to afford real women" kind of revealing. Of course, as everywhere on the internet, the comments are even crazier. I especially like the guy who claims "The matriarchy already restricts/regulates male sexuality through IMBRA and various other outlets."
ReplyDeleteIMBRA. We're restricting his sexuality by allowing women he met through a bridal agency to have access to the results of his background check and some information about her rights written in a language she can understand. And apparently it's not even that good of a background check. Or maybe he doesn't like that IMBRA limits you to two fiance visas? It make the return policy more of a hassle, that's for sure.
To kysokisaen:
ReplyDeleteMany MRAs are closeted gay, Jack Donovan, who wrote for the Spearhead is a gay activist. Many PUAs are closeted gay, they become PUAs to prove to themselves and the others they are not gay. Many people think that Citizen Renegade (Roissy) is a closeted gay. That probably explain the phrase "more first date anal."
Most MRAs/PUAs are low-status or very poor and they want women out of their leagues. That's why they go to third world countries. That explain the phrase "too poor to afford real women".
Oh gee, i wonder what game will be like with sex robots. evenharder for lesbians to pick up on them since they were built by men i suppose.
ReplyDeletelike will men be saying things like 'hey baby wanna come back to my place, i got some really big batteries'
this looks the the dawn of a hole new era for men and lesbians.
I don't know, if women had to vie for sex like men do, they life size man dolls would be in much higher demand.
ReplyDeleteI do not see an issue with this and I fail to see how it is misogynistic to figure out how to get one's needs met when the other gender is making it so costly.
D: “I do wonder though being that mra like to say that feminists are lonely and can't get a man, why a male version hasn't been put out?”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.realdoll.com/cgi-bin/snav.rd?action=viewpage§ion=mrealdoll2
David: “nick, this post is a followup to one in which I quoted a guy who is convinced sexbots will make women obsolete, a position that is 1) ludicrous, 2) insulting to women and 3)but so ludicrous that it's really not actually insulting to women, but a reason to mock the guy putting forth that argument. “
So, one person said this, and you’ve equated it to the entire MRA? I can’t seem to find a single MRA justifying or supporting this idea in ether of your two articles. I do see many feminists discussing how the fact MRA’s (IE, more then the one you quoted?) are disturbing and creepy for wanting this, and how it’s far more likely women could do without men then the other way around.
David: “As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism.”
And feminists have been saying the same thing of men for a long time (IE: women need men like a fish needs a bicycle). Difference is, for some reason, science has been funding methods to make feminists dreams come true (cloning, making sperm of bone marrow, etc)… Which view do you find more dangerous, the fringe crazies advocating robot lovers or the funded, scientific replacement of men?
David: “a version of this argument was made in The Misandry Bubble, a stupid but very influential and widely cited MRA/MGTOW manifesto.”
That wouldn’t be anything like The SCUM Manifesto, would it?
David: “It's there, and was there long before I even thought of this blog.”
Then it’s fair to say that hatred towards men is an integral part of feminism based on the relation to the SCUM Manifesto? And just to note, that was published (not just an internet blog) back in 1968 and made into a movie in 1976, suggesting she was far more then a fringe member of feminism.
Avpd0: “Many MRAs are closeted gay”
You make a lot of judgements about “most” MRA’s based on only a handful of comments. Yes, so MRA’s are gay, several are openly gay in fact. Does that make them any less men, or any less deserving of a voice (based on your attitude, as well as N.O.W.’s complete inaction when the nations of the U.N. voted to remove sexual orientation from a resolution condemning summary and arbitrary executions, it would appear the feminists believe yes, they are less deserving of a voice.)?
Avpd0: “Many MRAs are fascinated by sexbots “ and “Most MRAs/PUAs are low-status or very poor and they want women out of their leagues. “
Are you this judgmental about everyone, or just people you don’t like? In two posts you have managed to define what most MRA’s are three time, based solely on … what, three people?
kratch, clearly you don't read before you post, but if you read my post and my comment above you will see that I very explicitly don't equate sexbots-will-destroy-feminism MRAs with all MRAs.
ReplyDeleteHint: pay special attention to this phrase in my comment: "They are a minority, but they're out there"
"kratch, clearly you don't read before you post, but if you read my post and my comment above you will see that I very explicitly don't equate sexbots-will-destroy-feminism MRAs with all MRAs."
ReplyDeleteYou don't differentiate the two, instead, you clearly spelled out "a connection to MRA"s".
"As for the MRA connection, there are a number of MRA/MGTOW folks who really do believe that technology (like this) will make women obsolete and/or destroy feminism."
As this is in direct response to nick's comment:
"I am not sure if David is sort of making this as a MRA thing or just attempting to bash and intimidate men in general as that's the typical feminist way."
then it stands to reason, given your directly making the connection, that you are making it an MRA Thing.
"Hint: pay special attention to this phrase in my comment: "They are a minority, but they're out there""
If it is just a minority (I think even this is overstating things considerably), then that does not produce an MRA connection, any more then there is a connection between being an MRA/feminist and being homosexual, simply because a minority of MRA's/Feminists also happen to be gay/lesbian.
I'm curious, do you always assume first and foremost that people can't read before you post a reply? Is that the default setting for you? IE, If someone doesn't agree with you, then they are somehow mentally challenged?
I don't assume people can't read. I assume (when someone completely misses the point and attributes things to me that I haven't said) that they've probably just skimmed what I wrote instead of actually reading it.
ReplyDeleteNick is the one who brought up MRAs. I responded by noting, correctly, that some MRAs do in fact think that sexbots will destroy feminism. This does not mean that all MRAs think this, or that it is necessary to think this in order to be an MRA. I'm not sure what you think I'm saying, but it is really no more complicated than: some MRAs, a minority of them, think that sexbots will destroy feminism.
If you were to say, some feminists are lesbians, I would have to say, yes, some are.
"Nick is the one who brought up MRAs. I responded by noting, correctly, that some MRAs do in fact think that sexbots will destroy feminism. "
ReplyDeleteNick asked a question as to whether you were trying to attribute this to MRA's. Your response was to spell out the connection. Claim all you want that you aren't responsible, that someone else is to blame, and then look down and try and discredit or shame whoever attempts to hold you accountable. That is what "some" feminists do best, is it not?
Kratch, I really have no idea what you are on about. Everything I have said has been completely straightforward here: Some, not all, MRAs, have convinced themselves that sexbots will destroy feminism. That's what I said above, and that's what I say now.
ReplyDeleteAnd how does that answer nick's question... "Are you trying to attribute this as an MRA thing?", Other then to say "yes, it is an MRA thing because some (not all) MRA's believe it to be the case"... but this answer still makes it an MRA thing when it isn't. MRA's, in large part, don't believe this any more then I suspect "most" Feminists don't believe consensual sex is rape (Do you consider yourself a rapist David? or perhaps your celibate so as not to be one?). If the answer to nicks question was no, then there would be no need to mention MRA's at all, let alone spell out a direct connection.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you decided to instead, quote him and then answer a completely different question, then perhaps you should stop accusing others of not being able to read. hmm?
To Kratch:
ReplyDeleteJack Donovan made a posting on the Spearhead defending male-on-male sexual harassment and some posters approved him.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/22/male-on-male-sexual-harassment/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@David Futrelle:
ReplyDelete"Some, not all, MRAs, have convinced themselves that sexbots will destroy feminism."
The primary emotional reason behind the rise of feminism in the 19th century was the feeling that big industry had commoditized the contributions of women. If the nurturing qualities of women could be purchased rather than being the sole domain of a woman in her home, then commerce and technology were rendering women to be irrelevant. They could go to work in a factory, and be reduced in value to that of a lemming, because their former role could now be outsourced. More than 100 years later, feminism had morphed into a left wing entitlement movement based on the myth that it was men -- not industrialization -- that robbed women of their identity. Women bought that myth, and increasingly entered the workforce under the assumption that this was liberating to them, never realizing that the original emotional appeal of feminism was to fight the commoditization of women and preserve their distinctiveness, so that women could be appreciated for the unique nurturing role that they played.
After three waves of feminism, and various triumphant feminist screeds, men are now feeling unappreciated and they too are now made to feel that they have no unique or distinct value to offer society. Technology and industry have rendered men -- like the women over a century ago -- to feel irrelevant.
So it's no surprise that some men -- the ones mentioned in David's post here, rare as they are -- are looking to sexbots as a solution. They think that if they can be made to feel rejected and irrelevant, well then, they will use technology to reject women too. It's a "fighting fire with fire" mentality, but it won't end well. Loss of gender identity is the problem (although today, feminists seem to think that it is the solution). The true solution is for women to rediscover their nurturing qualities, for men to rediscover what makes them truly unique and valuable to society -- such as their ability to build and take risks, and for both sexes to kick feminism to the curb.
John Dias,
ReplyDeleteThe industrial revolution started in England, but it played out in sweatshops in Ireland.
These places hired women and children exclusively, they did not hire men because the government wanted a breakdown of Irish families.
If you don’t know about the conditions these women and children faced I suggest that you read Leon Uris for a start.
Kratch
ReplyDeleteThe SCUM Manifesto.
Are you kidding me? Try watching the movie Who shot Andy Warhol released by liberals feminists and then get back to me how you can consider her insane diary to be main stream feminism in any way.
I assume she is taught in woman studies as a question as to why she did the things she did. Much the same as Marc Lepine would be studied.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow that is some twisted thinking.
ReplyDeleteI have a book about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's views on why she started up with the Women Rights Movement and it had little to do with the commoditization of traditional women's work. It had a heck of a lot more to due with her getting mad at the way she was viewed by the men in her life.
It was the anti-feminists that started up with the cult of domesticity...the feminists wanted equal footing with men.
@Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that out one side of their mouths comes the "women's uniqueness in their nurturing role" while out the other side comes the "women are NOT unique in the nurturing department, in fact, men nurture as much if not moreso and this goes unrecognized".
If women were unique in anything back in the 19th century, it was for their "hysteria", a mental disorder stemming from sexual dissatisfaction. Since it was a well-known "fact" that women did not have sexual urges, they "endured" sex for procreation only, the first vibrators were not seen as sexual devices but, rather, medical ones, to help alleviate the symptoms of a mental disease unique to women.
@Elizabeth:
ReplyDelete"I have a book about Elizabeth Cady Stanton's views on why she started up with the Women Rights Movement and it had little to do with the commoditization of traditional women's work."
I too have a book. It's a book that David Futrelle is in love with, a book written by the feminist author Gerda Lerner. Seems like your book is at odds with my book:
"The Creation of Patriarchy"
by Gerda Lerner
Appendix: Definitions
Page 241:
"On the other hand it was easier for women to maintain a sense of self-worth, because they so obviously shared the world and its tasks with men. Certainly this was so in pre-industrial society, when the complementarity of men and women's economic efforts was clearly visible. It was more difficult to maintain a sense of self-worth in industrial society, because of the complexity of the technological world in which men operated and because of the commodity nature of all market transactions... It is no accident that worldwide, feminist movements begin only after industrialization."
Yes, being that this is a feminist author there is some dogma mixed in there, but Lerner does hit on a genuine reality when she ties the rise of feminism to the commoditization of women due to industrialization. I've weighed in on this already in my comment above.
@Pam:
ReplyDelete"Don't forget that out one side of their mouths comes the 'women's uniqueness in their nurturing role' while out the other side comes the 'women are NOT unique in the nurturing department, in fact, men nurture as much if not moreso and this goes unrecognized'."
If women try to justify the use of force and coercion by citing their nurturing capabilities, saying that men should have a minimal role in their childrens' lives following a divorce and that this somehow necessitates sole custody for mothers, maximized child support obligations for fathers, and a total loss (or near-total) of legal and physical parenting rights for fathers, then I call foul. I've known of men who were legally prohibited from even waving to their children from across the street, lest they be imprisoned for using "intimidation;" all along the child voiced his inquiry to the mother about why daddy somehow didn't care.
Women may have a unique role to play, but that doesn't mean that fatherhood should be subsumed to the wishes of the mother in the event of a divorce -- especially when State-sanctioned violence is her tool of power and control over the father. For fit and non-violent fathers, THAT kind of State control -- at the mother's behest -- is completely unjustified.
The bot looks odd and maybe makes some people think "man" or "trans" because her neck is so thick. Not much different from the neck of a ventriloquist's dummy. And like most efforts to duplicate human movement, it's too smooth and looks totally robotic.
ReplyDeleteThose fake babies are weird, sure, but they're less creepy than these sexbots because they aren't supposed to stand in for a fully formed human being with an actual personality and brain and so on.
I have a friend who has a couple of the babies. They're just fun to have around and hold, if you like babies. She's under no delusion that it's real or can actually respond in a meaningful way.
First of all, contrary to MRA claims, the societal model of the 1950's America, in which a significant number of married women concentrated solely on housework and raising children is an anomaly, not the norm. While post-war American prosperity made it possible for a short while, for most of history, this would be an impermissible luxury for the overwhelming majority of couples, with the exception of the aristocracy, royalty, and the richest mercantile families. For most of history and throughout most of society, women worked and earned an income for the family. Peasant women planted and harvested, took care of cattle and spun wool, generating income for the family, whereas wives of artisans and tradesmen almost invariably worked in their husbands' businesses as assistants, secretaries, laborers, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd thus, as terrible as the Industrial Revolution was for the poor in many respects, this "commodification" of women's labor was actually an improvement, because it finally put monetary value, however small, on women's labor.
What early feminists objected to wasn't this "commodification" (let's be frank: remuneration) of women's labor, but on the contrary, social prejudices that denied credit to women's work. They objected to the system of social prejudices that required a woman to work her ass off in her husband's business, while everyone pretended that he is the "sole breadwinner".
They objected to laws which gave men unfettered access to their wives' earnings and assets, so that if a woman had any, the effect of marriage was to essentially bankrupt her.
They objected to laws which denied married women any control or or benefit from things created by their labor, while vesting such control in their husbands -- such as female writers having no publishing rights to their own works.
They objected to laws and social mores which held women to an extremely stringent standard of virtue, while allowing boys to be boys. Anti-feminists always mischaracterize this complaint as a desire by feminists to empower women to engage in promiscuity. In fact, all feminists with whose views I am familiar object also to the prejudices that lead people of both genders to compulsively pursue joyless, meaningless, punitive sex. What those early feminists objected to, however, was a society in which a woman could be utterly disgraced and financially ruined because of a mere suspicion of a single indiscretion -- but a woman would have no legal or social recourse whatsoever against a husband who cheated on her, gave her venereal diseases, spent money on prostitutes, and forced her to care for his children fathered with other women.
They objected to a society in which abortion was illegal, but wives were expected to have sex with their husbands at any time and in any way the husbands wanted -- and to "take care" of unwanted pregnancies by breaking the law. It's really shocking to study social trends before the legalization of abortion -- how vociferous men were in wanting to keep it illegal, and how naturally they expected their wives to have multiple abortions to serve their convenience. Until quite recently, to be a married woman was to be criminal -- that was a far greater concern to early feminists than the supposed inhumanity of being paid for work.
They objected to a society in which men's privileges over women had the force of law, but their obligations towards women did not.
They objected to a society that gave women no opportunity to pursue education, professions and financial independence, instead forcing all women into the same mold regardless of intelligence or aptitude.
I don't want to kick feminism to the curb. I enjoy having access to employment, education and a variety of other things men take for granted. Now women who have nothing to lose, on the other hand -- they might have a different idea, but then, they don't speak for me.
"If women were unique in anything back in the 19th century, it was for their "hysteria"
ReplyDeletelol
They still are.
Again John, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton book has her actual words and what they say is "I was mad at my male relatives and friends for not considering I was their equal."
ReplyDeleteIt was the anti-feminists of the 19th century that actually reflect what the 20th century feminist was talking about more than the feminists like Stanton.
@D: David choose to bring up the writings of one "stupid" MRA manifesto as evidence against all. I see there being no difference between a web blog and a handful of fanatics reading and agreeing with it, vs a published work, and a handful of fanatics buying and supporting it. Read the context in which I brought it up before attacking me for even mentioning it. But if you don't like the SCUM Manifesto, perhaps the Redstocking manifesto would be more appropriate?
ReplyDeletelol
ReplyDeleteThey still are.
I guess they're still not getting their sexual needs sated.
Amused's last post must have been caught in the spam filter for a while, as I didn't notice it before now. What she says in the first paragraph made me think of a book that some folks here might like to look into, if they have not done so already:
ReplyDeleteThe Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap
@amused, "the societal model of the 1950's America, in which a significant number of married women concentrated solely on housework and raising children is an anomaly, not the norm" Er, not, it isn't an anomaly, it is a fiction. Poor women, in particular women of color, have always traditionally done labour outside of the home. My grandfather's sisters did farm labour and piece work (his youngest sister only did the latter as she was very ill and died young, likely of leukemia). I know plenty of women that age who would not see that as anything similar to their reality. The only women in my family that I can think of who lived at that time and did not do some sort of paid work were those for whom it was literally unavailable (my paternal grandmother is Cherokee and unemployment rates are extremely high for native american reservations) and they suffered hard for it. I grew up in a poor rural area and some of the most sexist old men used the term 'hard working woman' as a compliment. So, no, this fifties nostalgia is not one of reality for anyone but a tiny fraction of the white upperclass. In reality, fifties America was one of bitter segregation, starvation, and deaths due to no medical care. My home area did not even have electricty or running water until the sixties and Johnson's "War on Poverty". Even then, my mother was born in 64 and she remembers a time when a fair share of people she knew did not have one or the other. The fifties were only good for a tiny sliver of the population, that is upperclass white men with upperclass white women picking up a few crumbs (though they had no reproductive rights, could be legally raped by the spouses, did not have equal access to either primary or secondary education, etc.)
ReplyDelete