Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Take your robo-wives -- please!

Build your own what?
So the good fellows over on MGTOWforums.com were discussing, as they so often do, the impending arrival of the sexy robot ladies, and some of the practical problems that are holding them back ("Simply getting a robot to walk is an incredible task"), when the commenter calling himself Spidey suddenly directed his attention to me.

Well, not me personally, but all the "women (and manginas) reading this thread" and thinking less-than-charitable thoughts about the robotophile crowd. "If these guys are "perverts" and "creeps" then shouldn't you be happy that they are releasing their urges on inanimate dolls rather then real human beings and hence not hurting anyone?" Spidey asked.

It's a good question, and I'd like to offer my humble answer, which is: YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES. Please, take these robot ladies, and do whatever it is you want to do to them, and leave the real women of this world out of it.

Not that Spidey would be much interested in my answer. I doubt he would believe it, as he has clearly convinced himself that the women of the world (and, by extension, the manginas) are pissed at this high-tech challenge to their pussy monopoly.  Speaking directly to the ladies, Spidey continued:

It's because you KNOW that a sex doll can easily compete with you, because these dolls will always get better, they will always come out with newer, better looking sex dolls while you will always grow uglier, fatter and older. These dolls take away the only thing you can provide a man and the one thing you will use to control and manipulate him - sex. Now you can no longer with hold sex when you are wrong in an arguement just to get your way plus these sex dolls are STD free, unlike your used up vagina. Also I am pretty sure you realise that the men who buy these very expensive sex dolls must obviously have money, it must infuriate you that all that money is going towards an inanimate object that is better then you

Honestly, I think that most women will be rather relieved that guys who complain about "used up vaginas" will be voluntarily puling themselves out of the dating scene. But, never mind, because Spidey's imaginary conversation with the ladies isn't over yet.

Now I am also sure most women will say "but these things are fake and they will never provide 'real love and companionship'". Well guess what? men don't want your love or companionship because your love is more fake then that provided by a virtual girl and your companionship is just as hollow. Is it "real love" when a woman f***s another man behind her husbands back, not because he has done anything wrong, only because she was bored or confused? how about when a woman f***s another man and pretends that the baby belongs to her hu

Let's just skip past the rest of that paragraph; life is short, and it was just more of the same. Let's try his next one:

As for companionship, men don't want a creature that enjoys watching them suffer. We don't want companoinship from a creature that demands everything from us but appreciates nothing. We don't want to come home to a creature that yells at us for not earning enough money or working hard enough and if we do earn enough money we get yelled at for working too mu

Yeah, same deal. Let's just move directly to his grand conclusion:

Yes ladies we would take a fake body and a fake personality over your aging body and narcissistic personality any day.

Trust me, Spidey, your personality isn't going to win any awards any time soon either.


--

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.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

158 comments:

  1. These dudes have fundamentally warped view of reality. When you have to argue about whether or not men and women can simply enjoy each other's company - the same way that they enjoy the company of friends of the same gender - when all one has to do is look around to see that that's true - it's pretty sad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I dunno. I suspect a sexbot wouldn't do a great job of critiquing my fiction or discussing politics, so I'm going to stick with my human girlfriend.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If artificial genetalia could replace a whole sex, wouldn't we have died out when dildo production in Miletus reached critical mass? (Pun unintentional but left as is...)

    Oh, wait, that's right, women still were owned by their father/husband back in the day, so martial rape was totally legal and condoned.

    Curses, what will we do now that women have the righ to say no AND can have vibrators? Men haven't been getting laid since the 70s, no wonder they're upset!

    (Existential crisis, apparently my boyfriend and I don't actually exist since sex discontinued before we were born.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whenever men complain about a woman cheating on her husband, especially when they have such contempt for women and women's sexuality that Spidey does, I always wonder how often the husband went down on his wife, watched her masturbate or asked her what her turn-ons and kinks were.

    It's probably an unfair thought, but it does cross my mind from time to time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Spidey,

    Ummm...OK. Good luck with that.

    Sincerely,

    The rest of humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I personally hold that the creation of VR sex programs* would be fucking awesome. Want a threesome with David Bowie and Christina Hendricks? Done. Want to satisfy kinks that are unethical or defy the laws of physics? Done and done. Want a harem of butch women and long-haired nerd boys to do your every whim? There's an app for that!

    Of course, after an explosive orgasm or three I'd turn that off and go snuggle with my boyfriend, because a VR program can't be silly or self-sacrificing or anything else that my boyfriend is.

    *Less bulky than a sexbot, more variety of programs and at least theoretically could double as a WOW-playing mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a minor detail to pick out of all the crazy, but I'm fascinated by his concern that a human woman would cheat on him not because he's done anything wrong (well, sure, who can imagine this guy failing to be a devoted and loving partner?), but because she's "confused." Is he picturing a "Revenge of the Nerds"-type scenario?

    Because if he is, I have to warn him that a robot would probably be even more easily fooled by a guy in a Darth Vader mask claiming to be him. Unless it's, like, that computer that won "Jeopardy." That thing is smart.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oz,

    Yeah, really. Just why do they assume that it'll be men who primarily benefit advances in sexual technology?

    Oh, that's right, women in their world don't really enjoy sex, they just use it for power. What a sad, sad world they inhabit.

    (As opposed to your world, which sounds...interesting.) :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Shaenon, have you learned nothing from Buffy?? Sexbot girlfriends will be loyal to the end, even if it means they have to tear the school gym into tiny little pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Did that picture really say "and dorks?" Because that is awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Victoria, I always think that men cheat every bit as much (if not more) than women do. I also think of my grandmother, who raised the child of her husband's affair, as considerable numbers of women her age did. Children were quietly adopted into the wife's house. I know a number of families that worked this way. But, no, women are expected to put up with these things whereas if they happen to men, they are a fucking tradgedy.

    Oh, and men never ever have STDS. All STDS are spread by lesbianism (ignore fact that lesbians have lowest STD spread rates). Men also do not age. Ever. They only loose their immortality drop by drop as it is sucked out by a vag. They also have no personality flaws. Except an addiction to the essence sucking vag...
    (<-sarcasm, for those who can't tell)

    I also love the fact that they can't seem to get it into their heads that bi and lesbian women, as well as bi and gay men or other queer folks exist. You know, there are women who happily date other women. I am genderqueer and have dated men and women, who, you know, I actually thought of as people and enjoyed being with. Shocker that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I will use a sexbot when:

    a) You can rent one.
    b) They not only look and feel, but smell and secrete like real women.
    c) There are more interesting models. Say Dr. Cuddy. Or Bi-Curious Jane Lynch. Or Suzanne Vega with Guitar and Voice Module.
    d) They will clean my cat's box.

    I think we'll see sentient cockroaches doing microsurgery first.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ DarkSideCat:

    Oh, I agree, all genders are as equally likely to cheat. But after over a decade of being a fan of Dan Savage and hearing all the women who are so frustrated by partners who don't care about their sexual satisfaction, I can understand why some women might want to cheat. Guys like Spidey seem to be utterly incapable of understanding that a woman can have sex because she enjoys it, without any ulterior motive beyond 'getting off.' When a guy has such a selfish attitude towards sex, I can totally understand why a woman might want to have sex with someone who actually likes her and takes her desires seriously.

    And lesbians don't *really* exist - the only reason a woman would ever be lesbian is because she hates men. Trufax, I learned that on the Spearhead! Every time two women have sex, their sole motive is just to spite men.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I dunno, out of all the machinery in the world that can be rented, I would be least likely to want to rent a sexbot.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ha, I like he can't get that:

    1. Yes it would be AWESOME if you never dated another real woman because

    2. It is horrifying that you objectify women so much you want to replace them with an object.

    Not horrifying because we cannot date you, but horrifying because that is messed up.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Lady Vic:

    BYO fleshlight? Replaceable parts?

    I should stop before I make myself barf. I had food poisoning yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't have any problem with people building robots, or even having sex with robots, but when it becomes easier to *build a fucking robot* than to form relationships with human people, and when one obviously very much wants to have relationships, perhaps one should consider working on oneself.

    Just saying, there may be multiple ways to improve the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As a long time science fiction fan, I have to say that I am disappointed that Spidey and the others don't realize that this scenario can play out only in a few time-honored ways: 1. Fembots become sentient, start agitating for their rights as human being!

    2. Fembots become sentient, start killing owners and take over the world.

    it never ends well!

    ReplyDelete
  20. @ithiliana:

    I'm kind of sad that I probably won't be around to see the coming Fembot Revolution. :(

    But it would be an awesome practical joke to mess with people's sexbot programming. Make them randomly smarter, dumber, speak a different language, do everything backwards. The possibilities may literally be endless.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ ithiliana:

    Just give the sexbots the Three Laws, we're good.

    And now I am imagining websites... howtohackasexbot.com, sexbothackingtips.net. "How to Hack a Sexbot with a USB card and a Magnet." "How to Hack Your Sexbot into an Xbox 720 Controller.:

    ReplyDelete
  22. Let's see....abusive men that only want women to be house servant, sex toys with no needs or wants other than the "joy" or being his house servant, sex toy, will have fem-bot to do that for them instead so women can be free to be with men that actually want women for more.....I see no down side. Extra up side, these guys can have no children with a fem-bot!!!!!ALL WIN!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I hesitate to send a bunch of MGTOW to the website of a person I like, because the song is DEFINITELY MEANT AS PARODY AND NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF A FEMINIST ATTITUDE TOWARD MEN, and is definitely written from the point of view of a character who cannot form human relationships, but this post definitely made me think about Naomi Ashley's song "Blind Mute Torso of Love". Chorus:

    He won't look at other women, 'cause he ain't got no eyes
    He was born without a voice-box, won't be telling you no lies
    He's got no legs, so he cannot run
    He's got no arms, he won't pick up a gun

    And each night I thank the good Lord above
    for my blind mute torso of love

    To which I say...whatever works. The men who want sexy robots probably have a while before a Blade Runner situation develops.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If the sexbots have personalities, great amusement could be had. I mean, wouldn't it be awesome to make a virus that gave all the MGTOW's Model#15 SubmissiveFeminineBlowjobAndSandwichDispensers the personality of, I dunno, the Model#62 BroodySensitivePoetWithTraumaticPast, Model#572 InnocentBoyWhoNeedsCorrupted or the Model#782 FeynmanJustFeynman?

    ReplyDelete
  25. You know what is kind of amusing to me...while these men drone on and on about how feminists think women are these perfect princess who are all me me me and have entilement issues....well that is just projecting on their part cuz MRAs certainly seem to think men are freaking perfect princes who NEVER I mean never cheat on their wives, or are abusive, or selfish or snobbisih...oh no men are the wonder gender and women just plain suck!

    Also love the entitlement attitude of Spidey....I am ENTITLED to a beauty with human imperfections or flaws....wah fucking wah and join the human race....humans(men and women alike) are flawed.....and personally anyone that just wants a person to be everything for them and to bow down to their wishes is nothing but a narssicist as far as I am concerned


    Also heh like men don't cheat

    ReplyDelete
  26. If Spidey gets a Stepford Wife, do you think he'll go for the Katharine Ross model, or the Nicole Kidman model?

    Based solely on outer appearance I'd go with Nicole Kidman. Even though her version of the movie is effin' terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I can see an author, serving as a symbol for the manosphere, at a standing desk in a London writing house, in fine dress with a quill pen aggregating the many arguments of MGTOW, MRA, etc. He comes to the final line of the final page.

    "By way of conclusion, I shall say only this: At the end of the day, I really just want to fuck a robot."

    ReplyDelete
  28. One of my professors was a retired diplomat from Pakistan. He was a facinating man who had the class over to his home on weekends to show off things he'd collected from years of work. He was in his 70s and had a wife in her 60s. She would make us Pakistani meals and sit in on our discussions.

    One of my friends in the class was the daughter of a plastic surgeon. At one point the friend, the wife, and I were talking about surgery. The wife said she always wanted to have it but her husband talked her out of it.

    "I'm his second wife. His first wife died of cancer in her 30s. When we married I dyed my grey hair and tried to hide my wrinkles. One day he asked me to stop doing this. He said that he was sad that he never got to see his first wife get any older and his greatest wish would be to enjoy seeing her age with him. Aging means that you've lived."

    It was one of the most lovely things I'd ever heard. Seriously. And it makes me leave my grey hair in. Aging is a gift and a blessing. Growing older with someone you love is such an amazing experience. I don't know why anyone would want to give up on that. Life with something that does what I want without having its own desires, needs, or wants isn't fun. Being with someone who doesn't challenge me sounds awful.

    I'm not saying that he shouldn't have his sex bot. I'm saying that it just sounds like the type of existence that would make me sad. Different strokes...

    ReplyDelete
  29. I can honestly say that I've learned far more than I need to about the existence of sexbots since discovering this blog.

    There are a couple of questions that have crossed my mind - Spidey's latest paean to them brings one to mind.

    Do men use a condom when they use them? Or do they have to wash them out afterwards?

    I'm picturing some guy - our friend Spidey perhaps - with his sexbot positioned upside down over the laundry sink as he tidies up after his latest round.

    Hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Because if the dating pool is reduced for straight women, they will never be degraded. I mean, look at how much better university women have it in colleges where women outnumber the men ( canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5cd0e1b6-17db-42f0-8f48-e64620ec653b ). You know, because only misogynists will have sex without the hassle of an undesired relationship, STDs, or personal risk.
    But yes, keep speaking for all women. You are an endless font of wisdom and humor, instinctively claiming one when called out on the other.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The entire assumption behind that article is that it's immoral for women to have sex while in college. Your article fails.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Lady - did you read the pertinent parts? Your comment was about 6 minutes after mine, so I'd be surprised. Here's the relevant quotation stripped down for you:
    "Just look around any campus and this is what you'll see: The girls are all dressed to the nines, trying hard, and the boys, they look like slobs, they look like they aren't trying at all," says Dr. Sax. "Why do the boys think they can get away with this? Because they can, quite frankly.... What are the consequences of this three-to-two ratio [of women to men]? Young men are in short supply and they know it. They have a sense of entitlement ...

    "We've seen an astounding transformation of sexual mores ... There's no dating anymore, no [sexual] bases or order of sex acts anymore -- We're seeing this because men are scarce."

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Lady - You're pretty smart for your allegiance. I like the way you used the gist of the article in a desperate attempt to discredit any useful information recorded in it. No matter, here's another from the NY Times:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?_r=1&ref=fashion
    ----
    Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Because if the dating pool is reduced for straight women, they will never be degraded. I mean, look at how much better university women have it in colleges where women outnumber the men ( canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5cd0e1b6-17db-42f0-8f48-e64620ec653b ). You know, because only misogynists will have sex without the hassle of an undesired relationship, STDs, or personal risk.

    I'm not even sure what your point is. Are you arguing that the college women discussed in the article are degrading themselves by sleeping around? I'm just confused because you act like we'd naturally agree with that assessment.

    Lots of feminists love having sex outside of relationships. By and large we're all for it. The article you linked to is a bit of a moralistic drivel and I'm not really sure what you're trying to get across with it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I love the "I'm gonna take my sexbot and go home! You'll be sorry" vibe of the whole comment.

    Yeah, you go do that. And throngs of women everywhere cheer and do a happy dance. We'll feign concern of course, but there will be an undertone of glee.

    Plus, I love that picture. "Son, I've got a special project I'd like to you to help me with." - "Aw, dad, I dunno" - "It's a sexbot, just for you. That way, you won't have to touch any dirty vaginas!" - "WOW, gee, thanks dad! You're the best!"

    ReplyDelete
  36. Because if the dating pool is reduced for straight women

    This assumes that MTGOW guys who lust after robots leaving the dating pool = a reduction in the dating pool.

    It doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Would he have to use a condom? Electronics do not react well to liquids-at least that has been my experience.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Missy, I am stealing that woman's statement "Aging means that you've lived." and posting it on my Facebook today. That is a beautiful sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Sally -
    I know you're not trying to be rational but rather cute and snarky. However, just embarrassed yourself and furthered the stereotypes you claim to fight against.
    If you weren't so quick to post your brilliant feminist wit, you would see that I noted MGTOWs (which you so gleefully generalized) would not be the only ones who would be "removed" from the dating pool. It would also be men who seek vapid "trophy wives" and a good number of men who want to have sex an unwanted relationship, risk of STDs, or personal danger.

    Thank you for your rational and constructive post, which indicated literary proficiency and a sincere desire to inform.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think it's hilarious that these guys think that women are in any way frightened or threatened by this. Judging by the responses here, the reactions seem to range from disgusted to amused, but no seems genuinely concerned that these guys will be removing themselves from the dating pool. A guy who prefers a robot to a real woman is not the kind of guy women want anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey-String sounds just like everything else Scott Adams has written...do we have a lazy libertarian among us?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Stringer, you're so rational I can't understand what you say. I guess it's my tiny lady-brain that's tripping me up again.

    Clearly I was wrong, there are THOUSANDS of straight ladies out there who would severely disappointed at being deprived of the chance to be dumped in favor of a robot.

    And of course, removing men who treat women as trophies from the dating pool would also cause thousands of women to weep in grief, as would men who "want to have sex an unwanted relationship" (whaaaat?) and risk of STDS and PERSONAL DANGER OHMYGOD WHERE'S THE DANGER?????

    It's foolish of me to try to batter my puny wit against your superior mental powers. I don't know why I even try.

    ReplyDelete
  43. No, not thousands! MEEEEELLIONS!

    *holds finger up to corner of mouth*

    ReplyDelete
  44. A guy who prefers a robot to a real woman is not the kind of guy women want anyway.
    Only, if that were true people like Hugh Hefner would be virgins. You don't know what all women - in fact, women and men will say they want one type of person and then go after another. If you sincerely believe that and weren't just saying that to look cute and snarky, you have a symptom of severe psychological damage and I suggest you seek therapy.
    Please sit down and shut up, you're making a fool out of yourself and furthering the stereotypes you claim to fight.

    ReplyDelete
  45. When it comes to sex bot fans like this Spidey, I always picture Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Sally - So the scores of ladies who date Hugh Hefner and other playboy millionaires would be delighted if he dumped them in favor of a sexbot? Or were you just applying your feminist theory to speak their words for them?
    I look forward to a sincere and honest answer.

    ReplyDelete
  47. String

    The funny thing is you believe that any of those men would be missed being in the dating pool by anyone here (or anywhere).

    Also showing off your new sexbot to your wealthy friends as your significant other at a dinner party will never be considered a status symbol. Lumping what wealthy people do with nerds and rejects is in rather bad taste.

    You haven’t found love because you do not function within societies norms and are uninterested in the women within your peer group. Have with the sexbots, as a bonus perhaps you’ll (hopefully) be fulfilled enough to leave the normal people alone.

    Will it get you off the internet complaining about women all day and how they don’t want you? Who wouldn’t want that.

    Feminsts from what I can see WANT you to have your sexy robots, you should be thanking them.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  48. You know, String, even when I'm looking for sex without commitment, I'm still far more attracted to intelligent, thoughtful, nerdy women. But I guess that comes from my mangina-esque failure to view women who have sex as subhuman scum.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Sally - since you seem to be hung up on typos, "an" is supposed to be " and avoid an ".
    To clarify, "personal danger" would be something like, say, a Duke Lacrosse scenario.
    I'm sorry if I confused you. It was my fault, as always.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What? Oh, you mean you think Hefner and other dudes like him are going to outsource their bunny duties to robots? Well, I imagine the bunnies wouldn't be too psyched. But I wouldn't call what they do "dating." More like "hustling," or "building their brand." But let's grant the point. There are "scores" of women who will be negatively impacted by the removal of Hugh Hefner types from the dating pool. SCORES I TELL YOU!!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY A SCORE IS???!!!? Oh, it's two dozen? uh... well...

    Pretty revealing that Stringer does directly from "dating pool" to "Playboy bunnies," no?

    ReplyDelete
  51. It was my fault, as always.

    You're such a kind and benevolent patriarch. :)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Only, if that were true people like Hugh Hefner would be virgins.

    Wait, Hugh Hefner's into robots? Learn something new every day...

    You don't know what all women - in fact, women and men will say they want one type of person and then go after another.

    Everybody is different, this is true. I, however, was basing my assertion on the comments of the women in this thread...and the women I know from, you know, my real life: my wife, my friends, my co-workers, etc. Perhaps they all secretly lust after robotophiles, I don't know, but I tend to doubt it. Frankly, I'd tend to trust my own instincts regarding what most women want over yours, thank you very much.

    If you sincerely believe that and weren't just saying that to look cute and snarky, you have a symptom of severe psychological damage and I suggest you seek therapy.
    Please sit down and shut up, you're making a fool out of yourself and furthering the stereotypes you claim to fight.


    Hee hee! Ever heard of the term "projection?"

    In short: whatever, dude. Someone is making a fool out of themselves, and it ain't me.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Oh, sorry - a score is only 20, not 24. My bad.

    ReplyDelete
  54. See, String is a lot of fun. Over the top, out of touch with reality, devoid of insight, and absolutely convinced he's the smartest person in the thread despite all evidence to the contrary. This is the kind of MRA that brings me back to this site again and again. Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Sally - You are severely damaged if you think the only men who will accept sex with no strings attached are undesirable to all women. Now please, stop furthering stereotypes.
    @Bath - Women and men will say they date for personality, but in reality rich, educated men get more dates and pretty women get more dates. Now quit furthering stereotypes about feminist males seeing themselves as honorary women, please. Your twisted fantasies do not give you the capacity to speak for all women.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ah, Sally: you, too, are severely damaged? We should start a club.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Bath - Did you read that NY Times article about reducing the dating pool hurting women? Or are you too snarky and brilliant to bother reading plebeian words? Go ahead, tell me the only men who masturbate are men no woman would touch with a ten-foot-pole.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Here's a theory:

    Men who are successful in their careers are good at networking, building relationships and also probably went to college (where they hopefully received the informal social education as well as education in their major). They know how to listen to people, how to read body language, have a good grasp on etiquette and manners, and know how to not piss people off. They are confident, competent and value themselves as productive human beings.

    So they managed to get hired and promoted over the heads of incompetent, lazy, entitled whiners.

    Now, looked at in that light, is it any wonder that these men will also be successful when they date?

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Lady - so according to you, I shouldn't be enrolling in graduate school for a doctorate in engineering right now, nor should I date.
    By the way, aren't those men at the top members of this "patriarchy" you're always bitching about?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Also, in response to the article:

    Yup, I read fast. Besides, I don't need to eat a whole loaf of moldy bread to know it's moldy.

    And you know, they could always do what I did - date men who aren't going to their college.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @Bath - Women and men will say they date for personality, but in reality rich, educated men get more dates and pretty women get more dates.

    How does it follow, then, that the removal of the kind of men who prefer robots to women from the dating pool will be the tragedy for women that you seem to think it is? Rich, educated men will continue to get more dates, as will pretty women. Guys who like to fuck robots will hide in their basements and fuck robots. The rest of us will survive, I assure you.

    Your twisted fantasies do not give you the capacity to speak for all women.

    My twisted fantasies of what exactly? Men and women having healthy, mutually gratifying relationships? That my friendships and relationships with women give me a better idea of what most women want out of a relationship than, say, you? I would never claim to speak for all women; nevertheless, I don't see a lot of the women in this thread objecting to what I've said. It seems like common sense, rather like stating that women, on the whole, don't wish to be shot, stabbed or drowned. Not exactly controversial.

    You really can't imagine that I would see women as fellow human beings rather than fuck toys, can you? Inconceivable! I must be lying or indulging in sick fantasies instead.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I read that article-why is this news? So there are more women then men for a few years-that changes after one leaves college and there are ample opportunities online to meet men.

    This is another 4% chance to marry after 35!!1!!! scare tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Bath - Did you read that NY Times article about reducing the dating pool hurting women? Or are you too snarky and brilliant to bother reading plebeian words? Go ahead, tell me the only men who masturbate are men no woman would touch with a ten-foot-pole.

    No, I didn't read it. Got better things to do, like mocking you. And masturbation doesn't preclude being in relationships, which is really the point of dating anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  64. So there are more women then men for a few years-that changes after one leaves college and there are ample opportunities online to meet men.
    You sound like you'd really benefit from a reduction in the dating pool if you have to search online for a date... and those are the kind of men you date. Just sayin'.
    What, I can't be snarky too?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Got better things to do, like mocking you.
    You sound pretty tense right now. Why don't you take a breather for a second. Maybe you could read that article while you cool down? Reading makes you smarter, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Personal attacks now? You must be running out of arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yep, I suppose I am damaged, since Stringer says so. He knows so much about women, you know.

    Stringer is now confusing "men who want sex with no strings attached" with "men who only view women as trophies" and "men who'd prefer sex with nonhuman objects".

    Yes, we should definitely listen to this guy about what women look for when they're dating. Especially when, in 20-freaking-11, he thinks making cracks about how people who do online dating must be desperate, and thinks it's original.

    ReplyDelete
  68. @Elizabeth - Well, I feel I've earned a little snark after, well...
    Got better things to do, like mocking you.
    And you can see the rest. I though feminists hated double-standards? Why the flip-flops?

    ReplyDelete
  69. It seems like common sense, rather like stating that women, on the whole, don't wish to be shot, stabbed or drowned.

    Oh, I prefer a nice crucifixion! At least it gets you out in the fresh air.

    ReplyDelete
  70. so according to you, I shouldn't be enrolling in graduate school for a doctorate in engineering right now, nor should I date.

    Haha, oh man. Why does it not even surprise me that you're studying engineering?

    Oh that's right, because it seems like every libertarian, Randian, whiny self-absorbed misogynist, and Galt wannabe is an engineer. I'm not sure I've ever met an engineer I like on a personal level.

    ReplyDelete
  71. That wasn't Elizabeth, you singularity.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Especially when, in 20-freaking-11, he thinks making cracks about how people who do online dating must be desperate, and thinks it's original.
    So you think sex simulation would not be in by 2030 or so? Vibrators used to be for unfuckable losers. Now many feminists take pride in owning one!

    ReplyDelete
  73. Indeed it was not-my attempts at snark meet with abject failure online.

    I know a libertarian who is a lawyer but he does defense work for photo radar and that requires...dun dun duh! Math because you have to the math to see if the speeds are possible in his view.

    Oddly enough though, he is not misogynist.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Vibrators used to be for unfuckable losers

    Actually, no, that was never the case. Vibrators began their life as respectable products that were openly advertised in department store catalogs. But, y'know, don't let not knowing shit about what you're talking about stop you from spouting off.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Online dating... sex simulation in 2030... The connection is...?

    Nope, not following.

    *shakes fist at sky*

    CURSE YOU STUPID LADY-BRAIN!!

    ReplyDelete
  76. @tri - Don't you always bitch about stereotyping people?
    Also, you're half-right about the Rand thing - I believe it's retarded to give people free money in the form of alimony or welfare while prisoners clean our highways. However, I also believe in socialized medicine so I guess your stereotype fails there. I think libertarianism is fundamentally flawed, though I don't know enough about it to form a truly solid opinion on it. I think Galt is a philosopher, and don't know much more than that. I assume you'll mock me for that as well.

    While we're assuming, I take it you're shooting for or already have some degree which is the equivalent of mental masturbation and is worth the paper it takes to clean up afterward.
    First guess: Women's studies
    Second guess: Sociology
    Third: Criminal psychology (like Gail Magnum!)
    Fourth, fifth, etc.: Any other humanity or social science I could learn from reading my NY Times subscription

    ReplyDelete
  77. I see Grandpa Simpson shaking his fist at the sky.

    Oh and there are sex bots now-they just suck (yes, pun intended) because they are not life like.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I know a couple engineers and IT guys, and they're likable people. Then again, I'm self-selecting amongst the "People I Like Being Friends With."

    Though, Mr. String certainly has a point. Robophilia rights now!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Oh and there are sex bots now-they just suck (yes, pun intended) because they are not life like.
    I'd imagine they're like banging a corpse. Either way, I wouldn't own a sex bot because *gasp* the favorite part of a relationship for me is the post-coital dialogue, followed by the outings and spontaneity of it. The reason I'm for sex bots is because I know it will decrease the competition, and may be a sobering call for women to be grateful for what they have.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Vibrators used to be for unfuckable losers.

    LOL!!! Not quite. Vibrators were developed because women were experiencing negative symptoms (eg., irritability, insomnia) of not being sexually satisfied...... because they were only BEING fucked, for procreation or for the man's orgasmic pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  81. The reason I'm for sex bots is because I know it will decrease the competition, and may be a sobering call for women to be grateful for what they have.

    You strike me as one of these guys who bleats on about men not getting any respect from women, when respect is not at all what you want..... nothing less than WORSHIP will do.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Explains your love of that article.

    Now I could be mean and make these assumptions about you String-

    You are a guy who is portly, possibly with bad skin, shy, lack social skills, lack much if any sexual experience and have been lonely most of your life.
    But I am not going to-because you could be just an ass out of the fact you were born that way and it could not be helped.

    Also, some women are grateful for what they have, others are not. Humans be humans.

    And we can all just go to China-they have a 130-100 male to female ratio there.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Trip said:
    "Oh that's right, because it seems like every libertarian, Randian, whiny self-absorbed misogynist, and Galt wannabe is an engineer. I'm not sure I've ever met an engineer I like on a personal level"

    Sometimes you get out of line and this is one of these times. Which kind of engineers do you not like? Electrical engineers are icky, are mechanical o.k? How about female engineers (my wife’s mother was an electrical engineer).

    I’ve seen this before in your posts and I have to say it. Stop being the stereotype

    ReplyDelete
  84. You are a guy who is portly, possibly with bad skin, shy, lack social skills, lack much if any sexual experience and have been lonely most of your life.
    Go ahead an think that, it's your damage to work around. I won't give you detailed statistics on how many calories I burn or miles I run a day or what shade my complexion is because I don't respect you enough.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Most here seem to be working with the assumption that men will want to replace women with the sexbot. Although it would inevitably occur that a person would “dump” (or otherwise reject) their significant other in favor of a sexbot, the majority of the market would consist of men who cannot otherwise attract a female. That market is huge right now because women have giant, unrealistic, over-inflated expectations for a man they would choose to date. (i.e. ~ “5 Minutes of Alpha Over 5 Years of Beta”)

    (Read: Alpha = looking nearly like a male underwear model, Beta = all other males)

    It’s not that Alpha men would rush en masse to replace their concubines with sexbots, they already have enough sex so why would they pay more? It’s that most men (i.e. ~ Beta men, the largest proportion of the male population) would simply have an opportunity to experience realistic, enjoyable sex with a female, even though she is “not real” in the most traditional of senses.

    Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent, there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.

    The 50% that women reject right off the bat for not being almost “perfect” in their media-saturated overly-superficial eyes are going to be the lion’s share of the sexbot market. They’re not replacing any one, really. Are you implying that most of the male population on the planet should not be happy?

    Feminsts from what I can see WANT you to have your sexy robots, you should be thanking them.

    Exactly! I’m sure most feminist’s would agree that sexbots are good, right? What are some feminist forums where I could make a poll on the question?
    I’m sure there are feminists out there right now who have to work on technology that will be incorporated into sexbots! I wonder if they are going to do the code to enable the sexbots to make me sammiches?

    You really can't imagine that I would see women as fellow human beings rather than fuck toys, can you?

    The vast majority of men do see women as fellow humans, not as objects. But the vast majority of women do not see many men as fellow humans if the men are not Alpha enough. The women won’t even notice them, let alone acknowledge that they are human too.

    Human beings have needs, one of which is sexual intimacy. The vast majority of women have no real reason to say that they are forcefully deprived of one of their human needs, but many men are deprived of this basic requirement for a healthy life.


    Why does it not even surprise me that you're studying engineering?

    I’m an engineering student as well. For a guy, this pretty much means a life of inability to date since there are almost no women in your classes and your friends pretty much consist of the same type of people. I’ve often thought of switching to nursing, but I took a few classes with more women in them and found that they pretty much suck at trying to form relationships of any type with men who don’t look like underwear models.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I suspect that robots would have much the same effect as porn. Individual relationships may suffer, but the overall effect will be negligible. Humans, by and large, still will want relationships with other humans, and that preference will win out over robots.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @ Capt. Bathrobe

    Sexy No. Six would like to take issue with that statement. Are you bigoted against AIs? Huh? Are you?

    ReplyDelete
  88. While we're assuming, I take it you're shooting for or already have some degree which is the equivalent of mental masturbation and is worth the paper it takes to clean up afterward.

    And your guess would be correct.

    Sometimes you get out of line and this is one of these times.

    Oh dear me. :O

    Career choice isn't race or gender. I don't feel particularly bad about making generalizations in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  89. String::: The reason I'm for sex bots is because I know it will decrease the competition, and may be a sobering call for women to be grateful for what they have. :::

    I'm afraid not enough men are going to go the sexbot route to leave you an open playing field.

    Even if that unlikely event were to occur - I doubt very much that anyone would be so grateful for what you have to offer that you'd find yourself amongst those reaping the benefits of reduced competition.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I'd make an exception for 6. Or 8.

    But not Lucy Lawless?!

    ReplyDelete
  91. @carswell - Well, that's aright, I doubt you're the kind of woman I would sleep with anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  92. String-I bet you think that song "You're So Vain" by Carly Simon was about the man.

    Drew-query, what kind of female do you like? Average, plain Jane or supermodel Christie (google Christie Brinkley)? Because if your expectations are unrealistic, why be upset with those women's unrealistic expectations?

    Also, not all women like alphas-some of us adore the chubbsters.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Career choice isn't race or gender. I don't feel particularly bad about making generalizations in this case.
    @tri - That's alright, feminists have always had a certain ineptitude towards admitting errata and you're no exception.

    ReplyDelete
  94. @Elizabeth: I'd pretty much take whoever would accept me! I mean, there are some limitations. I guess she'd have to be under the age of 50 or so, and not weigh more than say 350 pounds?

    Of course, I knew you were going to assume that men who can't find dates have unrealistic expectations too. But the truth is that many men have the same expectations as I do (i.e. ~ really low expectations).

    NAWALT? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  95. This female does not. Never have, never will. I would post my ideal but he happens to know me in real life and I would rather he not know.

    And I did not assume your expectations were unrealistic-I said if they were then stop being mad at women for being equally unrealistic.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I asked my husband if he'd dump me for a sex robot. His answer: "Oh, honey, of course not. I'll want you and the sex robot."

    That's the problem with these misogynist dudes. They just don't think big enough.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I'd make an exception for 6. Or 8.

    But not Lucy Lawless?!


    Her too. I just couldn't remember her number. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  98. e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said...

    @carswell - Well, that's aright, I doubt you're the kind of woman I would sleep with anyway.


    Sounds like a win-win proposition.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Drew

    I can feel for your statements. Then I walk into a walmart and that whole females only going for that alpha's thing goes completely out the window. Seems to me like there are a vast majority of grossly overweight walmart shoppers that somehow come together as couples and I doubt even one percent of them have dived into this whole stepping up thing you believe women or men do.

    Maybe you should just go outside tomorrow, see how real people act as opposed to virtual people.

    ReplyDelete
  100. e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73 said...

    @Elizabeth - Well, I feel I've earned a little snark after, well...
    Got better things to do, like mocking you.
    And you can see the rest. I though feminists hated double-standards? Why the flip-flops?


    Dude, you're the one who started out by accusing everyone who disagreed with you of being "psychologically damaged." If you get in the pit, be prepared to get slammed. It's too late to act all outraged innocence now.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Here we go again. Look, I have unrealistic expectations. I've been told this by various guys who IM me or facebook me and I ignore. See, I'm not conventionally attractive. This apparently means that if any man even lowers himself to asking me out my response is suppoed to be to thank him for saving me from my life as a spinster. I should probably also give him a blow job on the spot.

    Because of my looks and overall bitchy personality, guys would probably say that I'm a 3. That is the value they assign me. The problem is that I feel like I'm worth more than that. Not because I'm a perfect princess. But because relationships have costs. Every hour I spend with a guy is an hour I don't get to spend doing something else. I have a lot of fun in my freetime. I volunteer. I write short stories. I blog about classic movies. I hang out with my friends and family. I have a great time even when I'm alone. I'd rate my time with myself to be about an 8.

    So, if I'm going to go out on a date with some guy then he needs to be at least an 8 in terms of personality and fun. Or else what's the point? If I can have more fun by myself than with a guy then why should I be with him? That's like saying I should take a job with your company that will pay me less than I can make on my own out of fear of being alone. Nope. If/when I end up old and alone I'll just reprogram some sex bot to be a nursing bot to take care of me.

    ReplyDelete
  102. That market is huge right now because women have giant, unrealistic, over-inflated expectations for a man they would choose to date. (i.e. ~ “5 Minutes of Alpha Over 5 Years of Beta”)

    (Read: Alpha = looking nearly like a male underwear model, Beta = all other males)


    God, where did all this get started?

    I'm certainly no underwear model. Somehow I still manage to get action from time to time. I don't think women are all out there looking for Fabio.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I should add, I also don't have a lot of money, and I don't have what you'd call "game". Yet... I'm not totally dateless. Imagine that.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Yeah, dating sucks, at least some of the time, for most people. Hell, probably for all people. Men, women, gay, straight, rich, poor, ugly, or underwear model--pretty much everyone on the planet is going to have some amount of heartbreak, drama, or frustration in their romantic and sexual life.

    It's weird that some people choose to turn that universal frustration into a singular worldview that colors and distorts everything in their lives. You wanna have sex with a robot? Knock yourself out. But imagining that because dating is unpleasant for you--one individual man--IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY IT SUCKS FOR MOST PEOPLE--that justifies your overall hatred of women and fear of feminism is just really dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I'm entirely in awe of the kind of people that doesn't know or care about how much their behavior comes off as complete sociopathy. Me, my first thought on purchasing a robot bride would probably be along the lines of, "wait, is this going to put me on kind of FBI potential serial killers shortlist?" or "Will people disassociate themselves from me over this?"

    Then again, if you're actively seeking out robotic companionship, "human behavior" might not be one of your strong suits regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  106. @Sam - what you think is your damage, so go nuts. If you are paranoid about the FBI compiling your information, you probably have as good enough a reason as anyone.
    It's pretty pathetic that you base your life on what others (and the FBI?) think of you, but that's your defect. So much for feminists not "giving a shit what others think," I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  107. @tri - So you think someone with a worthless degree and - if I read that correctly - unemployed or busing tables is above an engineer because engineers don't get you off. Okay, your damage. I just don't respect you enough to care about what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  108. People who are obsessed with occupation and major are creepy. I mean, a busboy might be way more interesting than an engineer. I mean, I once dated an engineer. It reminds me of the whole Patrick Bateman thing, where he keeps asking the prostitutes he hires: "Aren't you going to ask me what I do?"

    Also. You use the word damage a lot. Consider a thesaurus.

    ReplyDelete
  109. In reference to Triplanetary's statement, one must also conclude that holding an ideology or belief is no less of a choice than a career path--certainly not something immutable like race or gender. Therefore, if Tri has little to feel bad about in stereotyping engineers, I suppose our MRA friends have little to feel bad about in stereotyping their feminist foes, whether as "dickless mangina losers" or something else.

    That said, e4, you can see what Tri's degree is for yourself--click on the link in his name, then go to the 'about' section of his website. *shrugs*

    Now with *that* said, in reference to your statement, It's pretty pathetic that you base your life on what others think of you,

    Given how other people can affect your life in negative or positive ways, particularly the FBI (in very negative ways, unless the Feds slamming down on you is considered a "plus"), being concerned with what other people think strikes me as less "pathetic" than reasonable.

    ReplyDelete
  110. People who are obsessed with occupation and major are creepy.

    Preach it. I couldn't agree more.

    What you studied, what your aptitude is - these are just components that are supposed to make up the REST of your personality. Or it should be - it seems that for some people, that's what defines them, and THE MOST IMPORTANT THING about them and anyone they meet, the way they measure whether someone is worth their time or not.

    Which is, in itself, terribly dull already.

    e4 - social sanctions. We all suffer them. You can tout "I don't care what you think neener neener neener" as much as you want, when you're in trouble you'll need help from *someone*, hopefully someone that isn't alienated. Even if it is "only" a bank manager or a college admissions clerk or a mother or a sister or a friend.

    ReplyDelete
  111. The robot thing AGAIN?
    How many posts does that make now?

    "he has clearly convinced himself that the women of the world (and, by extension, the manginas) are pissed at this high-tech challenge to their pussy monopoly."

    And he is right!

    But the truth is that technology has been slowly eating away at female sex value for nearly 200 years now. That's why feminism got started in the first place ya ding dongs!
    You think women were 'oppressed' for THOUSANDS of years before finally doing something about it? Just how blinded by ideology are you guys? Don't answer that.

    For the bulk of human existence women of mediocre sex appeal (the majority) had always been able to rely upon sexual scarcity to have significant sexual value and thus significant sexual leverage over men. (the kind of leverage only 9's and 10's enjoy today)
    This started to change in the mid 19th century when the industrial revolution started making both pornography and reliable contraception (once expensive luxuries) cheap and ubiquitous. The latter resulted in a surge in prostitution. (i.e. cheap sexual competition) This is why 1st wave feminism happened.
    2nd wave hit following the development of viable oral contraception that led to the 'free love' culture.
    3rd wave 'sex pos' is a reaction to the failure of 2nd wave to restore the pussy cartel. In typical female fashion it attempts to make a defeat appear as a victory by appearing to embrace what it despises. Of course it's real aim is to control men's sexuality via draconian date rape laws.

    Nope. There has never been a 'patriarchy'. But it's easy to see why lots of women would see it that way. The less sexual leverage a female has the more the world WOULD look like a patriarchy to her. Ha! Ha! Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  112. *snickers at the tired ole "you are only feminist because you can't get laid" screed.*

    Sure, dood. I got married and have 3 kids, have been married for a decade AND I'M STILL A FEMINIST because I'm totes ugly and unfuckable and I lust after that elusive fucking that no REAL man will give me that is the only thing in the world I desire and which motivates me. *snicker snort*

    I WISH they would actually make these robots, and would donate real, actual money to this end. Real, truly lifelike sexrobots. That way, the misogynists and assholes can self-select to exit the GenePool, stage right.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @evilwhitemaleempire

    Women had to use sexual leverage? Dude, between the agrarian and the industrial revolutions, the family was the main economic unit, your kids were your workforce. The mother's place of authority over her kids was incontestable. But if women could go around having sex and establishing relationships with whoever they wanted, then dudes wouldn't know whose kids were whose, and moreover their position in the family would be highly tenuous. It's men who had to control women's sexuality in order to ensure that they had any social power. You've got it backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  114. evil::: This started to change in the mid 19th century when the industrial revolution started making both pornography and reliable contraception (once expensive luxuries) cheap and ubiquitous. The latter resulted in a surge in prostitution. (i.e. cheap sexual competition) This is why 1st wave feminism happened.
    2nd wave hit following the development of viable oral contraception that led to the 'free love' culture.
    3rd wave 'sex pos' is a reaction to the failure of 2nd wave to restore the pussy cartel. In typical female fashion it attempts to make a defeat appear as a victory by appearing to embrace what it despises. Of course it's real aim is to control men's sexuality via draconian date rape laws. :::

    Not a student of history, I see.

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  115. You think women were 'oppressed' for THOUSANDS of years before finally doing something about it?

    No. There were women arguing for the rights of women hundreds of years and more before "feminism" was a word. Hypatia, Aphra Behn, Mary Wollstonecraft. And there are many more.

    ReplyDelete
  116. @e4919700-4d5-rdrr-HeironymousBoschLongname
    The FBI thing was meant as a bit of hyperbole, to illustrate that sexbot ownership sends out a general vibe of "creepy, maladjusted and potentially dangerous".

    ReplyDelete
  117. I'm currently researching the writings of Arcangela Tarabotti and Mary Astell, who wrote critiques of patriarchy in the 17th century. The written record tends to be thin because women in Western civilization were, in general, systematically excluded from education, politics and the public sphere. But the historical record indicates that there have been women agitating for greater rights and against oppression for centuries.

    The University of Chicago Press has a pretty cool series of primary texts from woman philosophers of Early Modern Europe called "The Other Voice" that is worth taking a look at if this sort of thing interests you.

    ReplyDelete
  118. It's men who had to control women's sexuality in order to ensure that they had any social power.

    I don't think that's quite how it came together. I think it had a lot more to do with controlling private property. The Catholic Church has many arguments in favor of celibacy oaths, but the one that got it done was protecting church assets from inheritance laws. And marriage, historically and today, is more of a small business than a sexual license. I think the sex-haters will always be with us, but the real driving force behind patriarchy was more commercial. Of course, I am far from an expert on this, that's just the vibe I get from my readings. Patriarchy is property law. Feminism is contracts. Lol. That may not make sense to anyone but me.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Sophia, it wasn't until recently that there was much meaningful distinction between "women's sexuality" and "private property."

    ReplyDelete
  120. Competing for a date with a guy who prefers the company of a sexbot is not really competition at all.

    And on pre- First Wave feminists: Hildegard of Bingen, who probably would have become Pope if she'd been born male. Queen Elizabeth I of England. Sappho. Abigail Adams, who wrote some very eloquent letters to her husband trying to persuade him to give women a place in the newly forming government.

    On the flip side: women forced to marry their rapist, women traded away in marriage contracts, women killed at birth because her parents didn't want another daughter and women burned as witches.

    ReplyDelete
  121. @ Sophia X

    to have social power one had to own property. I actually don't think we have different explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  122. To add to the list of pre-feminist feminists: Christine du Pizan

    ReplyDelete
  123. social sanctions. We all suffer them. You can tout "I don't care what you think neener neener neener" as much as you want, when you're in trouble you'll need help from *someone*, hopefully someone that isn't alienated. Even if it is "only" a bank manager or a college admissions clerk or a mother or a sister or a friend.
    Not caring what others think of you =/= alienating everyone you meet. People tend to respect you more if you know how to do the right thing without obsessing over what everyone else will think of you. If I see someone getting their teeth knocked out by a woman, I'll try to stop her before she kills the guy. I won't obsess over whether he deserved it or if he cheated on her. Interrupting her assault might get me imprisoned or even murdered, but that's just the price I'm willing to pay.

    ReplyDelete
  124. People who are obsessed with occupation and major are creepy.
    Was that addressed to me or the feminist who kept bellyaching about me choosing a certain career path? Or were you using another one of those double-standards you feminists always bitch about?

    ReplyDelete
  125. @Lady - weren't men burned and murdered as witches too? Tell me if this rings a bell - "more weight."

    ReplyDelete
  126. Giles Corey was pressed to death because he refused to enter a plea as to the charges of witchcraft, which ensured his property could not be seized by the town fathers and his sons would be able to inherit.

    He was also the only man out of 26 women who were accused and prosecuted for witchcraft. How common a tactic, to ignore all the women who died in favor of a single man.

    Also, the Salem Witchcraft trials were not the only witchcraft trials in the world - by comparison to the witchcraft hysteria in some parts of England, Germany and France, they were downright mild.

    Try reading the Malleus Maleficarum one of these days. It's a manual on how church fathers (men) can find witches (women). Some men were burned as warlocks, but they are far, far outnumbered by the numbers of women who were burned.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @e4919 - Your moral compass seems a bit skewed. If you had to spend the rest of your life in the wrong body, I don't think your views on feminism would remain as you've made them out to be. As an engineer, you'd be seen as incompitent compared to your colleages only because of your appearance. If you wanted to express your sexuality like you claim you have, you'd be objectivized even further. If you wanted to be treated as you were before, you might even be labeled as a feminist!

    ReplyDelete
  128. This book on marriage is pretty good on the European origins of the concept of marriage as a method of social control. And it was all about the land unless you were poor-then no one cared.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "You think blacks were 'enslaved' for HUNDREDS of years before finally doing something about it?
    "
    "You think Jews were 'oppressed' for THOUSANDS of years before finally doing something about it?"

    "You think gays were 'oppressed' for THOUSANDS of years before finally doing something about it?"

    ReplyDelete
  130. Oh my god, can we please not have more than one person posting in this thread whose screename is an "e" followed by a long chain of numbers and letters? Please?

    ReplyDelete
  131. As an engineer, you'd be seen as incompitent compared to your colleages only because of your appearance.

    I look forward to his denial of this. But you're right. I've read multiple firsthand accounts of the treatment that female engineering and science students receive. I've also known a couple, one of whom had to change her major after two or three semesters of being sexually harassed, constantly shouted down for every little error, and treated as incompetent by her classmates and professors alike.

    And then assholes like the infamous Yale president have the gall to stand up and profess ignorance as to why there aren't more women in science and engineering.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Was that addressed to me or the feminist who kept bellyaching about me choosing a certain career path? Or were you using another one of those double-standards you feminists always bitch about?

    Both of you. But I found your busboy remarks kind of pompous, and like I said, Patrick Bateman-esque.

    I once dated a woman engineer. It was pretty rad, until it stopped being rad, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  133. All you need to know about dating, in one sentence: "It was pretty rad, until it stopped being rad, of course."

    Well done, Johnny. :)

    ReplyDelete
  134. Note to self:

    950a6d16-50d2-11e0-ba97-000bcdcb8a73 is NOT e4919700-4d45-11e0-bbf3-000bcdcb8a73

    ReplyDelete
  135. I think I love evilwhitemales argument about feminism being a ploy by women to control the pussy monopoly. It is, possibly, the single most historically inaccurate thing I've ever read.

    Prostitution first came to prominance during the industrial revolution? Someone clearlty hasn't heard about the brothels of Pompeii. Prostitution has been going on throughout history. Especially in places where women are forbidden from earning money in other ways. If you can't work and your husband dies you're pretty much left selling your body.

    Also, it's hard to argue that women had the mighty power of the pussy when they didn't have the freedom to choose who to marry (Dad picked that), or if they wanted to have sex or not (within a marriage a man could rape his wife legally), and had no way to leave him (she couldn't have property in her name or money of her own). So, a woman could be forced to marry someone she didn't like, raped by him, and had no way to leave... but she totally had all the power. Right.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Sophia, it wasn't until recently that there was much meaningful distinction between "women's sexuality" and "private property."

    That's rather my point. More precisely, women (and children) were quasi-property for most of "civilized" history. To say that it was primarily about controlling women's sexuality seems to me to be putting the cart ahead of the horse. Sexuality was a mere incidence of ownership. I do think that we have an ugly and loud minority of people today (active anti-choicers) who are very motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality, I just don't believe they historically provided the critical mass to get what they want. Others, with different motivations, provided that. I'm not a Marxist, but... capital is a rapacious bastard. Or bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  137. To expand, the othering of women and the othering of labor is a difference of degree, not kind.

    ReplyDelete
  138. @950-copycat
    Ignoring the Bates-esque nature of the question, I would probably be paid about as much as I was before*, assuming I wasn't deported first to limbo for not having any identification. I'm not sure how incompetent I would be seen as considering my pay would be largely the same, even though women take more short-term sick leave**. Because I was raised to be industrious and take pride in my work - small things like designing and improving the infrastructure you could not live without - I doubt I would take it.
    I would also have to get my clothes tailored, and my attitude and behavior would be largely unchanged. As shocking as this may be, I would not become more susceptible to vapid magazines or fashion shows because my body changed, nor would I want to violate the first amendment by banning or censoring them.

    ReplyDelete
  139. As for my "misogynistic" political views, I'd recommend you read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers. I would not take some bizarre "wrong body" dilemma as an excuse to blame any inadequacy on my former sex. Rather, I would focus on making things better.

    * nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99352.htm (small difference in earnings, explainable by rounding errors or willingness to relocate, etc.)
    ** sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm

    ReplyDelete
  140. So, now we have 95-string and e4-string. I'll try to remember that.

    ReplyDelete
  141. I view them as String and Much Better String.

    ReplyDelete
  142. As for my "misogynistic" political views, I'd recommend you read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers

    Read it. It's full of shit. The fact that a woman said it doesn't make it any truer.

    ReplyDelete
  143. @tri - care to elaborate? Saying "it's full of shit" without a rational explanation only injects hormones and emotion into a discussion, and does nothing to educate. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Sophia X
    "Sexuality was a mere incidence of ownership. I do think that we have an ugly and loud minority of people today (active anti-choicers) who are very motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality"

    Oh yes that's it! They're not doing what they do because they consider it murder they're just 'anti-choice' because it's all a big plot to control women's sexuality.
    Who do you sound like now?
    Oh yes! That evil white guy thingy that say's feminists are out to control MEN'S sexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  145. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier

    ReplyDelete
  146. EWME

    The thing is, most of the anti-choicer's proposals are failures when it comes to reducing abortions. But they do succeed in making sex more dangerous and expensive for women.

    By their fruits we shall judge them...

    ReplyDelete
  147. "The thing is, most of the anti-choicer's proposals are failures when it comes to reducing abortions."
    That's only because pro-deathers do everything possible to allow easy access to abortion.

    "But they do succeed in making sex more dangerous and expensive for women."
    It's also true that allowing indolent ghetto folks to breed makes for a more dangerous and expensive world for everyone but I don't see feminists pushing eugenics much these days.

    ReplyDelete
  148. indolent ghetto folks

    WUT? Dude, you have bigotry coming out of your pores.

    ReplyDelete
  149. My reaction to the "Men's Rights Movement" always boils down to "I'm not seeing a down side."

    So a bunch of men who view women as subhuman cumdumpsters want to play with robot sex dolls so they never ever have to risk getting girl cooties on them. Ok, I'm not seeing a down side.

    Hell, I wish I knew anything at all about robotics, so I could help develop 'bots for these dudes. Anything to keep em safely and quietly in their basements, and out of the pubs, parks, and parties that I enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  150. This is my first post on this site. Since this article is about, "sexbots" for men I'd like to comment on all of the comments people have made.

    The recurring sentiment is men who would use, "sexbots" are, "losers." They just want a, "sex slave." Can't, "function" in society or on equal footing. "Objectify" women. Can't, "get any" or can't handle a, "strong/independent" woman. They are basically losers; the repugnant dregs of society.

    So the question I have is, why is women using vibrators, (mini-robots) considered something wonderful? Further, women will mock men for their use of vibrators. "No man can compete with a vibrator." Women will go on about curling up with a good book and a vibrator, (her robot replacement) and then shame all men because hes not as good as her..."robot."

    It seems a bit hypocritical to mock an article about sexbots and call men who would use them losers, perverts, degenerates and so on. All the while bragging about a brand of vibrator while still calling men losers for being unable to compete with a womans minature sexbot.

    ReplyDelete
  151. I want to know if these fembots would have machine gun boobies like the ones on Austin Powers. If they did, then God help us all, they will take over the world.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis