Sex bots Anonymous 10682
Thoughts on the sex-bots debate?
I blame globalization for spreading degeneracy to other countries quickly
Also, I saw a tweet where this woman was talking about having male sex dolls and they blasted her profile pic and made fun of her. That was extremely mean spirited especially since men have been making fun of women for being jealous over sex bots while they act the same way about dildos and now the possibility of male sex bots..
I think it's disgusting and for losers who can't get a partner but are still decent enough not to pay for a prostitute, unless fucking robots is their kink but as long as they're not harming anyone I guess it's fine of course. I suggest this to be moved to /nsfw/
I don't like how they might normalize violence against women, but other than that I don't really care. If they genuinely do nothing but satisfy men's needs then I think it's much better than the situation now.
I initially found myself disgusted with the idea, but the more I thought about it, it's a fine alternative for lonely people. If someone would rather be with a doll than a human, it's probably for the best that they not be in the dating pool.
This manga was great! Such a satisfying shojo if you happen to have an afternoon to kill. Soshi best boy tho (I have a thing for guys with glasses)
i'm fine with it and the whole 'violence against women' issue like >>10686
is saying sounds like a non issue because these robots aren't women and if shitty people can get them instead of real women it will save some women from dealing with them. it can also help with the sex industry by using these in place of real women as well.
I dunno man I think lonely crazy people really need positive social experiences, not sexbots to pleasure them which will of course ultimately be unfulfilling and just leave them even more angry and broken and thus potentially more dangerous to society if they snap.
This. Honestly if I lived by myself I would probably work on saving up for one of the new male models.
I mean they don’t hurt anyone, so what’s the harm? When it comes down to it, these dolls are just another type of sex toy. Fucked up maniacs will bleed into everything, but I like to believe that most people are rational. >>10694
There already are male sex dolls! Vid related.
>men actually going this far in order to boycott women
thanks god I'm a lesbian
If we're being honest here, the ones who do buy them aren't ones anyone wants in the first place.
I feel like men aren't the ones doing the boycotting here
>men actually going this far in order to boycott women
Wouldn't make any difference. I've come to enjoy my life and I look forward to the future.
But seriously now: the guys who say they want to boycott women don't really like women and are probably misogynistic. It's like they don't even exist in the dating pool anyway, so it won't matter.
I mean I really don't give a shit if someone wants to fuck a robot, they're just glorified sex toys. They can never love you back. Would be fun to have one of no#1 husbando though. But again it's just a dildo with extra bits added.
I don't really give a fuck.
These look like they have skeletal deformities because their legs are permanently spaced open so a man can access the fake vulva.
It's uncanny, and the wigs make them look like plastic men in drag.
i think they're cool.
if their ai is improved upon then it would be nice for their thoughts and conversations to go past sex.
as for them being used for the freaky deaky who cares. they're just a fancy onahole.
I think there's something unsettling about reducing a sexual partner, of either sex, down to an inanimate lump of plastic, also they aren't really "bots", they're just big, expensive, sex toys. Not that I think they should be banned or anything, but much like LARPers and people who listen to ASMR, I reserve the right to judge you personally.
Sex bots have been around for quite a while, why is the debate over them such a recent phenomenon?
yeah this site is oversaturated but I lold at being able to request elf ears on the bot. i'd do it so I can live out my steamy lotr fantasies
It probably will be, but only because print media's dead and online newspapers need the clicks, so rather than actual journalism they'll just print pseudo-controversial nonsense about male sex "bots" being the new "big thing", even if worldwide orders never exceed five-hundred.
Another issue: what if a pedo gets a young bot? Wouldn't that be crossing a line or two?
Honestly i keep thinking of what will be done if they implement advanced AIs on those things and they get something along the lines of self will.
There, now that i got my tinfoil out of the way. Imho i think they are just glorified sex toys and actually harmless for now.
Have they? I was under the impression that sex dolls were old news but sex bots were somewhat recent.
Doll or bot, I don't think it's just a sex toy and I feel like a lot of women who say they are just want to seem more chill and to "not give men the reaction they want". There's something very fucked up about literally objectifying a sex partner, and it's obviously more damaging for women because we're already seen as sex dolls by men (hence their saying the dolls will "make us obsolete" - they do
believe women and dolls both serve the same function, but women come with an annoying womanbrain that makes them disobedient). Even if most men don't get dolls, it's still dangerous to let the notion that you can buy and own a "woman" be common and normal. I imagine a lot of men will develop weirder fetishes about turning actual women into mindless bots (we already have plenty of men with that fetish without the bots).
I personally don't care much because I'm a hikikomori and don't interact with others (and would appreciate a husbandobot), but I fear for society.
Adult sex bot = weird asf but okay because he's really not hurting anyone.
But what you said mate…dunno. It's just like manga that shows kids doing it. It's still a complex issue and many believe it only makes disgusting pedos prone to attack kids. I personally think it should be completely banned.
sex robots are basically men's materialized idea of what women should be.
i agree but i also agree with >>10692
i feel like i should wait until i see actual results because i'm kinda torn at the moment. i also feel pretty sad that it had to come to this..
Which begs the question: why/how did it 'get' this way?
Cultural Marxism and evolutionary biology.
? why this image? are you being sarcastic?
It's going to be a long time before sex bots can take the place of people.
I'd love a male sex (bf) bot though…again, if it could actually look/behave relatively human.
>These aren't men so desperate for sex they'll treat a woman like an object. They're men so desperate for companionship they'll treat an object like a woman.
Thoughts on this comment? It didn't really make sense to me but it could be interesting if there's any truth to it.
I think it depends on the man, obviously. Have you ever watched the movie Her? That was a guy so desperate for companionship and love he didn't want to have sex when his AI girlfriend tried to get him to do it with a real woman. I know it's a movie, but I can see a tiny percentage of men being like that.
The majority of people yearn for companionship. Even sex translates into being accepted, loved and sought after.
Under the "patriarchy" you virtually had every able-bodied, normal male pair-bonding with a woman. Cultural conservatism channeled male testosterone-fueled energy, obsession, and competitiveness into productivity. It channeled female empathy, emotional intelligence, and superiority in multi-tasking into child-rearing, support, and homemaking. In essence, both genders' biological hardwired aptitudes were being utilized, I won't argue whether it was good or bad. If you are interested in evolutionary psy/bio and don't feel like reading you can watch Robert Sapolski's lectures (stanford uni).
Things have undoubtedly changed. Men have to compete with women in the workforce, they are not needed for provision and protection since the state took up that role and they are pitted against women constantly, be it via identity politics, 3rd wave feminism, alpha - beta dichotomies and the sudden realization that pair-bonding for the majority of males is a lot more complex when it isnt culturally enforced. If you want to look into how humans pair-bond simply read up on oxytocin, vasopressin and dopamine (especially D1 and D2 receptors and how the preference for either correlates with tournament species or pair-bond species psycho-sexual behavior).
If you think it's just a limited amount of men, the omegas' of the species, you might want to look into Japan and the herbivore male "movement", their percentages of virginity amongst the genders and more importantly the ages. I won't even mention MRAs, deadbedrooms, MGTOWs and the like.
Finally, the toughest pill to swallow for women is that they are significantly less happy now, statistically. Just as men have lost their purpose, many women lost theirs too. There is a correlation between the number of sexual partners and failure to form pair-bonds and divorce, women have to experience the stress of working full-time and put having a family on the back-burner, they have to spend less time with their children and juggle work, home, and family.
All in all, it is a sad state of affairs.
Feel free to ban me now.
Feel free to ban you, why? Are you outing yourself as male or saying you think you will be banned for your opinion? Because honestly I agree with everything you said, and I'm a woman – so I have all the right to post here too. You didn't even say it's a BAD thing in itself, you just explained the situation/scenario and how bad things have gotten lately. Nta you were taking to though, no idea what other types of responses you will get.
>>10875>Feel free to ban me now.
Lol don't worry anon. This isn't lolcow.
>Just as men have lost their purpose, many women lost theirs too.
Or maybe that women feel overburdened?
Not only do they have to be performing in the workplace, they are expected to still be dutiful at the home and are pressured to raise families.
We know we have purpose, but we know the weight of that purpose and how it still feels disproportionate to men.
Men are threatened not because they lost their purpose, but because the dynamic and responsibilities have changed.
I agree with a lot with what you said, but just that people are insecure as a whole aside from being too overwhelmed to form appropriate social bonds.
You think this 'feminism' part 9001, might have a part in this?
Evidently, but even the current mutated ideology that is 3rd wave feminism is being pushed for a reason. Social engineering is subversive at its core.
When you tackle the feeble sophistry with facts it all hastily comes crashing down. Anyone regardless of gender can ascertain that.
You can easily take each of the tenets of the current incarnation of feminism and dissect it via the Socratic method and you will instantly discover a familiar pattern.
It's just another head of the Lernaean Hydra.
But can it succ like I can?
Honestly I am just miffed you don't hear about these sorts of advancements being aimed at women. All this "hurr durr we wont need women now!" blind to the fact that women might likewise be a profitable market for these products too. I call sexism.
I would like a qt robo bf too, but currently the tech just isn't there yet. A robo bf would be dull if all it did was mindlessly bang, it needs to seduce too.
pic VERY related
I feel you so much anon. Bring on the robos I say! Though I feel like the main difference between men and women with their robos is personality. Seems more like men just want a sex slave, and some probably don't even give a shit about them speaking or anything. Women want more of an actual companion.
Fuck I want a Data husbando too.
Wait, what? I fail to follow your line of thought.> incels build female sexbots for themselves> why aren't people actively talking about replacing men?> i call sexism
Who's the sexist? Incels who don't build male sexbots for women, or women who don't want to build male sexbots for themselves? Or women who don't nag incels to build said sexbots. I'm honestly confused.
calm the fuck down they're working on it already in japan. no one wants these fugly western ones anyways.
Some of these incels and non-incel misogynists seem positively gleeful at the prospect of replacing women. Whenever there is news of robot sex dolls or VR companions it is in reference to male customers.
I'm crying 'sexism' to be tongue in cheek, because we aren't seeing a lot of these advancements being aimed at women.
I have been thinking SO MUCH about how an entertaining tech based bf could work. I think it could be a cross between a vr 'game' and app where the character could exist in parallel depending on which you load. I've got more ideas for how the phone based interactions could work and how the dialog trees could work but I know nothing about coding and what I envision would require lots of novel animations and voice work. Adobe is pioneering some interesting products that could make these aspects much easier to produce but till then all I can do is dream.
i just want them to make chobits tbh. i want a cute animu girl computer.
honestly these sex bots aren't a bad thing, especially since (despite what western media is saying) they are also being developed for women. however, i think once they slip out of sex doll territory to real person territory, that is going to cause a ton of problems.
While the majority of people seem to find the whole sex doll thing either funny or indifferent, it seems that the vocal minorities on either side of the 'debate' are fairly well represented by opposing genders. Men are over the moon and giddy about the prospect of sex dolls, both sentient and non-sentient, while women are generally in opposition to them and think they could be dangerous or destructive to the social fabric.
Where does this particular divide come from?
i am a woman (duh) and i feel like they're a positive thing for sex work and removing unsavory men from the dating pool. most people who are against it, just seem to be upset about the idea that women are objects, or that they are offensive to the female form, but i feel they aren't looking at the subjective use for them as replacements for women, where they would otherwise be in danger. i see no problem with that, nor do i see an issue with sex dolls or anything. most of the population aren't going to buy these sex robots and ones that will likely have a negative view of women already, so better robots than real people.
my main issue is with the idea of AI robots, which would replace people and cause population decline, lower adoption rates and increased isolation. especially in countries like japan where these are being developed as AI for sex and work replacements, it's going to lead to some bad things.
No problems like this in MENA countries
Why would A.I. robots be such a big threat? Even if an A.I. is intelligent and the doll is beautiful, why wouldn't people prefer to talk and interact with one another? I find it hard to imagine myself having real emotional and meaningful experiences with an A.I.
The internet has made people more retarded and deranged
Their main points are that today's women are promiscuous, cannot pair-bond and resort to cheating, statistically very likely to be divorced and lose 50% of assets and having to pay alimony in some cases, high risk of STIs', losing custody of children over 80% of the time in family court. Also, more general stuff like women having lost their femininity and traditional values and the like due to feminism.
And then there's the incelibate types that due to various reasons believe it's impossible to attract a woman and rationalize it, but acta exteriora iudicant interiora secreta.
>why wouldn't people prefer to talk and interact with one another? I find it hard to imagine myself having real emotional and meaningful experiences with an A.I.
This is the scary part. They go as far as to suggest that artificial wombs will finally render women obsolete. The future looks dystopian.
When you say A.I. are you guys talking about a sentient A.I. or just a really smart version of the ones on our phones that feed all our conversations back to their corporate masters?
please do not speak for me.>>11015
i feel like they would be a threat because A.I can be programmed to be more perfect than people, who are flawed. many people actually would rather have someone who isn't flawed at all. more attractive and less difficult is a win win.
>>11015>why wouldn't people prefer to talk and interact with one another?
the men who get these kinds of dolls either can't find any women who will talk to them, or they got burned badly in the past. I don't think any man who can have conversations with real women at will resorts to these dolls. but incels exist. some men really can't get interact with women in any meaningful way, be it because they are ugly or creepy or both.
I mean they don't sound like catches themselves and their perspective of things is tainted by bad history (the dating market has always sucked just in different ways).
But I am down for artificial wombs. Fuck getting pregnant, that shit sounds awful.
I own a dildo and this is just that but more. If men (or women) want to fuck life-size fake people, that's up to them? I don't understand why this is an issue.
Not actively in the convo, but it seems like the social aspect of having a possibly sentient sex toy that could replace relationships for certain people can be read as both a boon to technology but complicating gender discourse.
Also the asymmetry in considering people (most sex dolls/bots are marketed towards men) is part of a larger issue of socially inept or misogynist men.
i think people who are mad about the robots replacing relationships are stupid. those kinds of women always just rustle incels feathers and make them worse. the types of people who want sex robots aren't the types of people who are worth being with.
i'd much rather scum be with these than try to be with a real woman.
If you can't program their AI to kill all humans this is a huge waste of time.
Could be useful for eugenics, but I absolutely loathe when people say child robots could be given to pedophiles.
Why would women be afraid of being replaced by an innanimate object if she has something more to offer than her body? Current sex bots are what Pong is to videogames. The technology is still very primitive. Imagine what the technology will be like in 30 years, in 60 years. We didn't have computers until the 1970s. Think bout that. I expect full Data (From Star Trek) robots in out lifetime. I think most women are worried that, just like videogames, they will grow in populariy and their precious alpha males will prefer robots to them. Remember how videogames used to be for losers and outcasts? They are scared that attractive males will rather have a fully customizable girlfriend he can turn off and will chose it over an actual woman. They are afraid the vagina will lose it's value and threaten their cushy place at the top of the social pyramid. Then, once they are unwanted second class citizens only worth as much as they have in their bank account, women will finally learn what it's like to be a male. I expect many suicides. :)
Yes, should molest real kids the way nature intended. If you don't like themcdon't get one. Stop trying to dictate other people's lives. I'm not a pedo, but I wouldn't deny someone a hunk of silicone because I don't like how it looks. I'd rather them diddle their robots than bottle it up and release all their frustration on some poor real kid. That shit fucks them up you know…
pedophilia isnt a real sexuality, its a mental illness at best and a serious moral flaw at worst. giving them a child sexbot would only encourage the illness/flaw. they need treatment, not for someone to enable them.
You could replace pedophelia with gender dysphoria or whatever. Yet, trannies are encouraged to take hormones. The only difference is that pedophelia hurta another human. If they can do it without actually harming a child I don't see the problem. It removes the vict from the equasion.
how are Data like robots a bad thing? There are women in this thread lusting after him.
Women are just gonna get their own robo bfs and everyone will be happy.
The difference you describe is exactly the reason why pedophilia should not be tolerated or permitted compared to being trans. Being able to enact out the behavior that could contribute to hurting another person is wrong, even if you replace that person with a robot, it is allowing what is societally wrong in the first place to still occur. Tech can't just be a scapegoat for social or cultural problems, nor should medicine.
GTA would like a word…
But seriously, the genie is out of the bottle. It's only a matter of time before the 'pedo' bot shows up. Whether it's mass produced or somebody homebrews it…
I actually agree with this poster, society should never condone degenerate mental illnesses that hurt others. It may very well help these people not act out their urges, but I refuse to accept we normalize it. You people fail to realize that the whole "live and let live" mentality of being accommodating to every single fucked up person, will be the downfall of the western world.
You give them kid-dolls now and 3 generations later diddling kids is normal. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the DSM in the 80s, now you have 6-year-olds cutting off their balls and getting chemically castrated like it's normal. You literally have grown ass men wearing a wig taking shits in the same bathroom as your daughters and the whole world acts like it's normal. Sweeden now has over 70 reported rapes per 100000 but somehow it's all fine.
Stop being so agreeable. Wake up.
>>11057>Being able to enact out the behavior that could contribute to hurting another person is wrong
What? That makes no sense. Let's not let anyone drive because they could hurt people too. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. If no one is getting hurt then no crime has been commited despite what your feelings are. Let me guess though, abortion is fine right? It's okay to kill chidren, just no fuck them? Or what?
god dammit he is so fucking cute, I could not watch that without blushing
No wonder the actor used to get so much fanmail from women. Just goes to show, a literal autistic robot can be a babe magnet too.
Are you against "old" CP by which I mean, the subject of it is no longer a child? By all means, let pedophiles indulge because no one is technically being hurt by it anymore. Let's just round up all old CP and distribute it since it technically isn't hurting anyone anymore. I'm sorry, but there's no way I can see someone have a child sex doll around that would benefit other people. People who are usually repulsed would probably be curious, since they aren't ~hurting anyone~ and honestly, it would start just like DDLG did. I'd rather find my dad's barely legal sex doll than an actual child sex doll. Jesus.
Please, link studies in which pedophiles ~acting out~ doesn't lead to them craving actual children and pushing boundaries. Sure, your neighbor might not molest someone yet, but they will have less of a problem with seeing a sexual photo of the child.
Your response isn't even logical. Accidents are a consequence of driving, but driving in itself is not harmful. I don't see where you got the "crime" aspect. Normalizing the objectification and exploitation of children by keeping up demand for CP isn't some routine consequence of pedophilia that can't be controlled for like "how do we stop people from getting hurt from a mundane thing like driving??"
>>11061>Let me guess though, abortion is fine right? It's okay to kill chidren, just no fuck them?
Nta but both are gross and one is already mildly acceptable. In a few decades the other will be too. Humanity is lost.
Oh God, I am so sorry, I didn't mean to turn this into a pedophile debate thread
nta and I don't condone any kind of pedophilia either imagined or real so this is getting even more off topic, but even if you use sophistry about the "perils of an unfortunate reality" getting raped is always a lesser evil compared to getting killed.
It didn't, that's why I said it's getting even more off topic because I agree with that anon's premise that it's still wrong to act out pedophilic fantasies on an inanimate object… I'm just saying getting raped is always less-worse than getting murdered because at least you're still alive, so this argument doesn't actually "turn that same logic around" on the other anon arguing that there's nothing wrong with child-shaped sex dolls.
>They are nowhere near on the same developmental level. They don't have the same capability to process pain or trauma.
Yes, but they are still human and abortion is taking another human's life. The anon arguing that imagined pedophilic fantasies are okay because someone else is not negatively impacted is at least being logically consistent even though I disagree with their premise that no one else being negatively impacted inherently makes a thought or action morally right.
>>11071>getting raped is always less-worse than getting murdered because at least you're still alive
Of the top of my head I can think of at least a few real-life scenarios that getting raped and staying alive afterwards would be worse than getting murdered.
>your rapist keeping you alive to further rape and/or torture you>your family finding out about the rape and deciding to honor kill you
Your post reeks of jealousy. It's okay to feel that way, but don't start blaming men for your admitted inability.>>11010
Insecurity. Sex dolls are like any market. Supply for "women" will go up while demand will stay the same. Competition will go up, the "price" of women will fall.>>11013
Well said. If you let people to channel their frustration at inanimate objects then you will decrease their irl harmfulness.>>11034
Wouldn't the perfect female AI just be a better version of human women? I mean, if its self aware then there's little distinction. It would want to have rights and whatnot. The beauty of it that it would be always rational and cold headed. I would trust every decision it makes for itself. If it's okay with being used as a sexbot then who are we to disagree?
Japan has a lolicon pandemic. Yet you don't see them raping minors.
Its the same with videogames. Playing a violent videogame doesn't make one act violently. But an already violent person will be drawn in by the violence, hence play it. People usually have the cause and effect in reverse. Giving pedos "plastic children" to act out doesn't normalizes molestation of minors.
The gay parallel is flawed as well. We decided that gays, trans and whatnot are not a harm to society and only AFTER that did they became accepted. This will never happen to paedophilia.
Please tell me what man IRL that doesn't frequent imageboards is talking about this? None to zero, am I correct?
This isn't a real issue. Unless these guys are REALLY part of every woman's dating pool, are desirable and most are not supported by their parents, I wouldn't fret. At all.
I would honestly prefer being murdered. When you're raped it would be difficult to get on with your life and rapist get away with it most of the time so going back to your normal life would be impossible. I think dead would be far more mercifully.
No one currently alive will have to deal with the issue. But the underlying wish to replace women is there, to which some take offence. No matter how unlikely it is to happen in the near future.
However the possibility is there. It is possible to create robots who are vastly superior to living females (and males) in every regard. Which may scare others.tl;dr
: sexbots are
Well, since robotics, computational neuroscience, mechanical engineering and programming are almost virtually 100% male, I doubt males are feeling threatened by being replaced by male sexbots anytime soon. Not to mention female attraction is quite different than male attraction, in the first place.
That's not how free market works. If there's demand there will be supply. Do you think investors would just ignore half of their possible clients? Just look at the sex-toy industry.
Yes and I reiterate, we are a sexually dimorphic species, we have different biological imperatives when it comes to mating. The females that are going to be content with a robot will be astronomically fewer than the males. Thusly, the industry will most resemble the porn industry. It will be male-dominated and will cater to males.
The only reason the sex-toy industry's main demographic is women is modern feminist gynocentrism in regards with sexuality. Male sexuality is demonized and shamed while female sexuality is deified. Ask yourself this; do you think the same of a man that uses a fleshlight or silicone/plastic vagina, as a woman that uses a vibrator or dildo?
Anyway, it's basic evolutionary biology. 40 to 60 years from their inception, these robots will be normalized and will most likely resemble a human extremely well. Not an issue in our lifetimes probably, but it's something to ponder about.
That's in no way an equivalent. Old CP is evidence of a crime. Someone was hurt at some point. With the nobots no one is getting hurt at any point (except probably the Chinese children building them, but it's okay to work them to death as long as you don't fuck em, so that's fine.)
I would like to remind you that we didn't have computers until the 1970s and they were as big as rooms. That was almost 50 years ago and now we have computers that are infinitely times more powerfuk in our pockets. At the rate technology is evolving we will see robots in our lifetime. It's just a matter of time. It will probably take a few generations to completely phase out women though.
We are pushing the physical limit of conventional processors. We can't really decrease the size of the transistors anymore because of quantum mechanics. Clock speed has beet topped at 4 GHz a decade(?) ago. The only thing keeping up the computation increase is multi-processing (multicore and cloud). Quantum computers would solve the issue, but they have been '10 years from now' since forever. Without some kind of breakthrough the task is impossible.>It will probably take a few generations to completely phase out women though.
Which is the exact same thing I'm saying, Not in our lifetime.>>11094
Secondary sexual characteristics are irrelevant. Just use a different mold, make the shoulder broader and the hip narrower. The penis is just a balloon filled with lukewarm liquid. Personality traits seem comparable too. If you can teach a machine how to be feminine then we can teach them to be masculine. Same process.
Also, have faith in women. When technology get's there, the know-how and tech will be available for everyone. If future generations want their Data, they will get it.
Ah, and we forgot about gays, they could would want their gay sexbots too.
You didn't actually address my points and instead went on to rant about things I didn't even imply.
I did not talk about sexual practices and whether males please their SO sufficiently, yet you focused on that imaginary argument.
You went on to say that males pressure women into anal, that I never denied, only to further strengthen my point that the porn industry is male centered and caters to men. Since anal is demonstrably only becoming mainstream as a fetish due to porn.
You went on to state that feminism is simply women telling men not to do illegal acts, as if law is not enough for that, further implying that normal men tend to commit those acts unless women specifically ask them not to. You failed to address about how feminism is actually promoting the objectification of women, portrays them as weak and in need of empowerment and affirmative action. You, moreover, failed to address the fact that women are now statistically less happy. I could go on about feminism for hours, but I will refrain.
Finally, apart from your obvious ad hominem you also deduced that I must be male (let alone a low-value male like a robot) to further insult me like it has anything to do with my arguments. Obviously, you couldn't help yourself and even used a reductio ad absurdum with your last sentence that I don't even know what to make of.
All in all, I expected nothing and I'm still somehow disappointed.
If robots whenever "take" the place of women, the men who chose robots were not the type of man most women would want anyway.
If they do replace women, there will probably be robots for females out there too, eventually, with more brains and feelings than a simple sex toy.
That's it. Fuck the guys who treat women as objects, especially because they hate us… give them sex dolls and let the rot alone, I say
Women aren't going to be replaced by robots- men are. Men are complete shit to deal with and burdens on women anyways, do you honestly think we will continue to put up with you? Why would I chose a human male that is fat, ugly, stupid, and doesn't pull his weight in the relationship despite working no more than I do, when I could have a robot that is beautiful and does things with me and when it gets home from work actually helps me with housework and the children instead of flopping on his fat ass to play video games?
As for artificial wombs, that shit still ain't ready, and even when it is will cost so much it will be out of reach of the vast majority of men. Meanwhile we could wipe out most men and keep a select few for breeding RIGHT NOW. In the future we won't even need those, because we're working on artificial sperm and have the time luxury of waiting for it to go down in price.
It's in no way women who should be worried about sex bots.
First off very loose on the term robot. Realistically the people who are going to buy it are the same ones who buy sex dolls now.
Also most of the sex toy indusrty caters to women anyway. So if sex bots get to the point were it's a normal thing. There probably be more men bots than females.
I hope to god this is bait tbh.
Is realty making you shit your pants little boy? It should, you aren't needed and you certainly aren't wanted and your shit is ever closer to catching up with you.
You have to at least admit it's a 10/10 bait though. haha
Pretty good points in it regardless.
I am actually so scared I grew a penis!
There are plenty of arguments in the thread, actual points (>>11149), so I won't indulge you.
I hope I'm not biting bait. >>11125
See >>11093>Male sexuality is demonized and shamed while female sexuality is deified.
Anon >>11104 only focused on that point…because she quoted it.
>You went on to state that feminism is simply women telling men not to do illegal acts, as if law is not enough for that
The law isn't enough for that, sadly. Since the attitudes behind rape are culturally perpetuated, we need more cultural support that rape is serious and more broad in its definition and occurrence…that's where feminism comes in. Anon did not state anywhere in her post feminism "is simply" any one thing, she stated:>Feminists telling you that you shouldn't rape women, children, and animals isn't villifying your sexuality
That's one action feminists are taking: telling you that not raping isn't vilifying your sexuality. Nowhere did this anon imply feminism is simply that.
>further implying that normal men tend to commit those acts
Well, first of all, she said you seemed like a robot, which isn't implying you're an average joe. But definitely part of the problem with rape is that people tend to believe the "average joe" isn't capable of it, which is not true.
>unless women specifically ask them not to.
This does not seemed implied by her post at all, but I think the point is that a lot of men (hell, women too, tbh, but that's a tangent) see what is defined as rape as not necessarily "bad" and as normal i.e. Chads at a party thinking spiking a girl's drink is funny and not fucked up and that it's her fault for going to the party to begin with.
>You failed to address about how feminism is actually promoting the objectification of women, portrays them as weak and in need of empowerment and affirmative action. You, moreover, failed to address the fact that women are now statistically less happy.
She didn't even quote those parts of your post, that's probably why she didn't respond to those parts.
> I could go on about feminism for hours, but I will refrain.
Bless your soul
>Finally, apart from your obvious ad hominem you also deduced that I must be male (let alone a low-value male like a robot) to further insult me like it has anything to do with my arguments.
Well…your arguments are typical of a robot male. So…yes, her conclusion on that was based off of your arguments. If her conclusion was wrong, I don't see how it's that insulting considering your arguments ARE similar to robot males. How is it offensive to be compared to them when your beliefs are so alike?
You did not actually use any facts whatsoever and you loosely attributed interpretations to that posters statements. You instead used tired feminist drivel while not even greentexting properly to quote me, completely warping my arguments.
Your justification for the use of ad hominem and argumentum ad ignorantiam is not even sound semantically.
Finally, as a typical indoctrinated cultural marxist you must resort to circulus in demonstrando just to provide the illusion of proving your point.
>>11175>You did not actually use any facts whatsoever
I quoted the parts of her post which you misconstrued. For example, she never said feminism was only about telling men not to do illegal acts and you paraphrased that part of her argument incorrectly.
> You instead used tired feminist drivel…, completely warping my arguments.
I mainly used "feminist drivel" to explain what she possibly meant. The one argument I may have used "feminist drivel" on is where I went off about where people don't think the average Joe is capable of rape, when you meant normal men as men who don't rape. That may have been equivocation on my part, but to be fair, "normal men" could mean a number of different ideas.
>not even greentexting properly to quote me
I'm sorry about that, I did think to include each poster next to the quotes, but I decided against it because I thought it was fairly obvious who I was quoting. I won't do that again.
>Your justification for the use of ad hominem and argumentum ad ignorantiam is not even sound semantically.
Lol, it was meant to be tongue in cheek. I can get how you're upset at me justifying that in jest, anyway.
>Finally, as a typical indoctrinated cultural marxist you must resort to circulus in demonstrando just to provide the illusion of proving your point.
It's unhelpful to keep on reducing my beliefs to "indoctrination" or "drivel". It would be helpful if you'd quote me where you feel like I am committing such fallacies. Perhaps I quote incorrectly, but I like knowing exactly what statements a person disagrees with or thinks isn't explained well.
Not surprisingly, there is a lot of hatred against virgin males on this thread…
My posts in the thread are:>>10875>>10882>>11020>>11060>>11093>>11125>>11146>>11152>>11175
Cite your counterarguments and I will clarify when applicable.
As for the logical fallacies, I explicitly cited them in order of occurrence in their respective posts. Let me reiterate;
1st argument - she used Ignoratio elenchi, you quoted it whilst making no assertions whatsoever.
2nd argument - she used Post hoc ergo propter hoc, you somehow made it worse by bathing it in more drivel
Then you went on to tackle specific facets;
1st argument - Argumentum ad populum
2nd argument - You probably need to reread it, you missed it entirely. I pointed out her ipse dixit and circulus in demonstrando by offering counter-points that she knowingly wouldn't address because it doesn't fit her narrative.
3rd (non)argument - Tone policing/ad hominem, but I wasn't even making a point so whatever.
last argument - post hoc ergo propter hoc and thinly veiled ad hominem.
Literally zero arguments.
I don't know which exact arguments of mine you are responding to of the two posts I made ( >>11164
). Readability is also significantly increased when you quote the exact sentences you're referring to. I have to guess at which reply and which sentence of mine you're referring to.
Also, "tone policing"? I'm just explaining that your posts are difficult to read since you don't quote/greentext. It is unhelpful to call someone's beliefs "indoctrination" when indoctrination has a specific meaning and you don't know how or why I formed my beliefs. "Drivel" has a negative connotation off the bat and tells me that you likely don't take me seriously and don't think what I believe is worth listening to, which makes it hard for me to stay motivated to talk to you when it feels like there's nothing I could say which would get through to you because it's all "drivel".
kindly get the fuck out of here, conspiracy nutjob
Why are emotionally driven unsubstantiated personal attacks so common in this thread? Can you not function like a normal adult at all? I know this is an imageboard but come on.>>11198
You are correct, I didn't think about readability. This is gonna take a while, but what the hell.
I made an assertion that male sexuality is vilified. Let's go back 120000 years, we are primates that function in a tournament-species mating paradigm. Males competed for females and being bested meant genetic death, but more importantly significantly increased the chance of imminent death. Due to the shortage of resources, exile, by the alpha-male, by predators or territory disputes. The males that survived long enough to pass on their genes were the males that happened to enjoy a larger amount of the steroid hormone testosterone, thusly being more muscular, aggressive, risk-taking, obsessive and goal-oriented. But that's half the story, often times males that didn't have optimal levels of testosterone managed to pass on their genes too, via a primitive version of infidelity. They would secretly mate with the female which in turn would fake ovulation to mate with the alpha male - thus ensuring the offspring would survive since the step-father is none the wiser. The beta males had some other characteristics, lower testosterone and higher estradiol via aromatase meant less aggression, more empathy and higher levels of vasopressin which resulted in pair-bonding behavior and social (in group) cohesion. These beta males maximized the chances of the offspring surviving due to being better at securing resources and being better caretakers. So there was an evolutionary advantage for females to mate with both if you look at it in a vacuum. How did it work then? You can fast forward to today, it works pretty much the same way in evolutionary biology terms. Women when ovulating seek out a mate with highly masculine sexual secondary characteristics, indicating high testosterone levels and fitness of genes and on the days that are are not they prefer less masculine males who are better providers and caretakers. This is the main issue evolutionary psychologists face, the coexistence of tournament and pair-bonding paradigms in humans.
We have established that males today have certain imperatives hard-wired and the latter are further reinforced by androgens, brain architecture, epigenetic environmental pressure and cultural norms.
We now have to challenge the assertion that male sexuality and the masculine identity is being vilified.
ADHD is almost exclusively a male disorder that virtually did not exist in the 80s. There is not even a similar disorder with the same characteristics in DSM-I, II or III. Are we misdiagnosing masculine energy and its expression?
On to rape. It has been established that rape ideation and acting on it is a mental illness. No, our primate ancestors did not rape the females, the female would have to express estrus and especially for some species there needs to be a "ritual" for the actual ovulation to occur. That doesn't mean that rape doesn't occur in nature, but it is not the normal method of procreation and it hardly ever results in offspring (no ovulation), thusly the male does not pass on their genes. Females have developed strategies to counter insemination by undesirable males or when they are not mature enough to conceive, most commonly faking estrus and the signs of ovulation or masking them.
We can ascertain that the majority of males are actually not prone to rape, but many have a predisposition for consensual forcefull coitus, since it's a hard-wired mating "ritual", just like many women enjoy forceful coitus for the same exact reason, but don't enjoy rape. That's why some women experience orgasms during rape, the primitive limbic system cannot distinguish the stimulus and fires all the relevant procedures automatically.
Onto the male brain. Goal-oriented and obsessive. There is a clear reason college graduates are over 60% women and rising. Affirmative action and feminization of education. The method of teaching is simply not effective for the male brain and the underlying socio-political biases are disorienting.
On to the workforce. The male is evolutionarily hard-wired to compete and struggle to amass resources in order to provide for a female and ascend hierarchically to demonstrate high value and by proxy express his ability to provide protection. By having to compete with women in the workforce and getting displaced by affirmative action the male is further disenfranchised and grows despondent at his apparent loss of purpose and goal.
On to microaggressions/mansplaining/whatever feminist buzzword is in vogue and the fact that men are afraid to even express explicit interest in females due to the blowback that might occur, to the point that joking about male penis mutilation on TV is funny, while females being the butts of jokes is an attack on women, hashtags like #killallmen are universally deemed A-OK while even citing the fact that women underperform in male fields is misogynistic. A concentrated attack against facts and logic greatly distress males even further, since they are creatures that function in rigid logic, almost obsessively.
Let's not forget family courts, child support, alimony, false rape allegation, sexual harassment claims, sexual misconduct in the workplace et cetera. Males feel like they are primed to lose. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce, over 80% of divorces are instigated by women, the woman receives alimony in over 40% of the cases, the man in 11%, virtually every false rape allegation (confirmed) case is female on male, same goes for all sex-related allegations. It is basic statistics, nothing misogynistic or misandric about it. It's all biology, environment, math.
Holy fuck I'm tired of writing. There's a ton more to mention and we've only covered one gender.
Anyway, I can go on later if interested.
inb4 a ton of typos and nonesense, i didnt proofread(YOU CAN'T SIT WITH US)
nta but still a conspiracy nutjob.
OT ASF and NTA but I had to write A paper on the school of Frankfurt back when I was in uni, and that was insufferable. Sorry, had to get this off my chest. You can all go back into killing each other now.
It's not necessarily true that it would encourage actual abuse. In fact, child porn has been shown to potentially prevent abuse as part of a larger treatment (http://openjournals.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Marble/article/viewFile/374/317
). These dolls could maybe be used in the same way.
Why do they need to be sex bots? Nasty selfish people. They should make RoboCops to help stop real people from having to deal with dangerous criminals, not an uglier, dumber version of Persocons.
Because a "sexbot" is just a big fleshlight, and a copper-bot is a lot more complicated.
We can create mini ultra powerful computers that you put in your pocket, send information through the air basically, create other humans in vitro, clone, and all other sorts of insane things, but the only robot people want now or have true interest in making is a sex one? It probably has to do with money, corruption and selfish desires. I can't.
We're animals first and rational citizens second.
That's people's favorite excuse when they do dumb shit, especially like cheating or stealing. "it's human nature" or something along those lines. If we were still so animalistic we would just take a dump whenever and wherever we wanted, and I can guarantee you the police and most citizens won't buy the animal excuse if anyone ever does that.
I don't mean to derail (at least too much), so I will sage. I just don't think that truly applies anymore. That's like saying you can't say no to sex being offered to you (and you can choose) or decide not to eat a certain thing even though you're hungry. It's nonsense.
Please stop with this "singularity in our pocket" thing.
You give humans too much credit. Not to long ago we used to empty our bedpans on the street and it was not until late 19th century we accepted that doctors have to wash their hands between autopsies and helping women give birth.
It was science and education what changed our behavior. But take education away and you get pure animals.
I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.
Hmm tbh I'm mostly going of Destiny's argument on this issue.
It's true that they didn't conduct an actual trial, but isn't this correlation worth pursuing if it could lead to fewer children getting raped? Ultimately, you're probably never going to get rid of pedophilia, so therefore our efforts should be centred on harm reduction. As far as using real CP goes, you would only use already produced material, with consent from victims (who are now adults). Of course, bringing up their abuse by asking them this may be traumatising, so that's a problem with this idea.
>>Victims are getting exploited all over again every time some fat slob jacks off to the images of their abuse. Have you thought about it that way?
Just the thought of that hurts so much.
but it's not, they already have robots doing human jobs in japan right now. ffs, do you idiots actually read anything off of this site??
You should calm the fuck down. It's a thread on sex bots and not everyone's eyes go straight to the word JAPAN!!1 Chill, it was just an innocent comment I made at 4am, I was being more playful than my tone suggests because obviously I won't use emoticons here.
if you took half of the effort that's been spent on helping men achieve sad orgasms, we would have cured cancer by now
nta but you're the one who called them an idiot first. a lot of you people are really confused.
hey sorry if i'm late to the party, i just wanted to aid with your point. watching CP is a crime for a different reason than it being evidence of a crime. It's that it creates demand for child pornography to be procured. Without people watching, there would be no reason to provide videos. You're not passively observing something illegal happening, you're actively participating in the crime.
This is true and now I'm depressed.>>11367
This is true too and so obvious I don't understand why more people don't get it.
I'm glad you can lol after your Prozac, anon.
I think it's one of the many side effects of a culture where people are passive to others' suffering. It's something that may not be culturally bound, because the diffusion of responsibility seems to drop up in other places as well. Not quite sure, though. All we can do is try and be the exception to the rule.
Some guy calculated that the average orgasm (inside a vagina) for a man costs him about 30$.
I don't know if he's going to recalculate the cost after the introduction of bots.
So ladies what kind of cute boi-bot would you like to have?
I would like if they purposefully looked a little inhuman, if only for the exotic factor.
How would you even begin to calculate something like that?
He made an estimation of the costs needed for a dude to take a girl out to eat, to drink, parties, holidays, all of the stuff "needed" to keep a girl as a girlfriend.
He also estimated the average costs of prostitutes, escorts, sugar babies, and swinger parties.
Sounds like bullshit but I believe it!
People who do math like this put girlfriends and wives next to sex workers and robots forget not all men (most, actually) have feelings too. Humans need company and often feel the need to be loved, wanted, desired and cherished. If a man has become bitter enough to think a loving girlfriend isn't worth more than prostitutes he can pay to fuck for 1h, then he probably doesn't really deserve a loving girlfriend to begin with.
exactly, and these idiots can waste their 10g on a robot and then hopefully leave women alone.
the only issue i can see is them bragging about how much better robots are than real women, and possibly trying for legal marriage and stuff.
What's wrong with marriage? Many groups who are fundamentally unable to produce offspring are allowed to marry.
Until robots are sentient and able to advocate for full civil rights as participants of society, I don't know if it is useful to consider robot-person relationships (especially since in this context the robot is a tool for sexual gratification, but perhaps there will be models that also provide limited interactive companionship aside from sex).
Nothing is wrong with marriage, but what it represents as an institution within societal structure is changing subject to the back and forth of whether parties that cannot legally give consent are marriageable (people comparing gay marriage to a slippery slope for marrying cats and dogs), the emotional function (do we need to have a public marker of "love" that is validated by others?), and the roots as an economic/political transaction (women are basically sold off to produce the next generation).
I agree with this. Men and women are different…
I don't know what it is but part of the sexual appeal for women is the person's social standing/personality. Beauty has much more weight in male sexuality, while for a woman it's other things along with looks. That's why male escorts will try and establish a personal connection with the client. Also, the more socially successful guys are going to be more popular. So paradoxically women will sleep with a RICH alpha male for money rather than a poor alpha male for money. For men this doesn't matter.
Remember not to engage the male poster, anons
Robots are my fetish so I'm absolutely okay with this, as long as they don't look disgusting like the ones in OP's post. Bonus points if one is made that looks like MTT. I know Undertale is a disgusting dead relic of the past please no bully>>10875
It will be interesting to see how this field interacts with the transhumanist movement.
Imagine paying off your eternal robot life by being an indentured sex servant for like, a quarter century. Finally, my lack of self-esteem will pay off!
>>10908>A robo bf would be dull if all it did was mindlessly bang, it needs to seduce too.
That's probably half the reason why they won't bother as much, it's more complicated. Female sexbots will probably just have to look cute and it'll be enough.
That and the fact that, let's keep it real, female sexbots will vastly outsell male sexbots anyway, in the same way that female sex dolls greatly outsell male sex dolls at present.
As a kv femcel, I want a male sex/love robot. A robot that can provide both sex and love (or at least the illusion of it).
just get yourself an internet beta basedboy. He'll shower you in attention (and probably gifts) and you don't even have to get close to his disgusting ass.
If he starts crossing the line just ghost him, find another one and repeat.
deep inside my heart i kinda always wanted to have one of myself so i could fuck myself
Doesn´t make much sense to me, seems like the demand exists regardless.
I would like a cute anime boy-like sex doll. Too bad all the male ones are ugly.
I'm more and more convinced that polyamory is the future. The number of men who are a) attractive, b) accomplished/have their shit together/mature and c) interested in commitment is getting smaller and smaller every generation. I don't want a man who isn't these three things, and I'd rather share one with a friend or two (not too many or it's hard to have an actual relationship) than be alone or with an uncanny valley bot.
The issue with your fantasy is that you'd still compete to be the main partner of said man. Sultans had tens of women, but only one of them had any actual power, the rest were basically glorified whores.
Why do males have to come here and post poly shit so they care screenshot it and get angry at their own fabrications on r9k?
To be clear, are you implying that only men would ever find poly appealing?
Also, I like to think that even the guys at r9k would be self aware enough not to take their own fabrications as fuel for their fire, but maybe I don't revile them sufficiently.
And, I'm not saying "OnLy ChAd gEtS tO FuCK!!1!" I'm saying men who want commitment, aren't ugly, and are grownups. I don't think that's a high bar, but most modern men can't seem to meet it. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment. I also don't want to be alone, and while I'd rather have a good man to myself I'd rather share a good one than be alone. I also don't think I'm alone in that sentiment, though I suspect I'm more uncommon in that sentiment.>>37212
That's why I said one or two, and see above. I don't want to be one girl in a rotating merry go round, I want a committed loving relationship, which I don't necessarily define as being limited by the number 'two' (though I'm very aware that the higher above that number it goes, the harder it is to have equality in the relationship).
Such highly attractive men dont have to commit. They literally can fuck you and provide as much as they feel like it and then exchange you for some 23 y/o 10/10 stacy and so on. If he's both resourceful and attractive then he won't need to settle for anything. To a man who has it all there's nothing he can't replace if he feels like it
>>37218>To a man who has it all there's nothing he can't replace if he feels like it
I disagree. I have an older brother who is conventionally attractive, got his shit together, and married his college gf in his mid 20s. Not every many is like what you describe. Lots of men, good men, value commitment, and will stay with one woman because they value fidelity more than maximizing the notches on their bed post. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm over 30 and married with a child so I think my perspective comes from experience.
Highly attractive men don't have to commit, true, but many of them want to regardless (though, an admittedly shrinking percentage).
>>37211>I don't think that's a high bar, but most modern men can't seem to meet it
That's the very definition of a high bar>To be clear, are you implying that only men would ever find poly appealing?
No, I'm just saying that it doesn't work exactly the way you think. What you're describing has happened since the dawn of time. Alpha men (because, again, that's exactly what you're meaning when you're saying "attractive, with their shit together and ready to commit") almost always are in a polyam relationship. And in those relationships there's always ONLY ONE woman that's at the top. The Alpha female. The bottom bitch. Do you have what it takes to be that, or will you be just a regular sugar baby ? A mistress. Again,a glorified whore.
All you wrote is true, but i doubt they would stay this way if real poly was the social norm. I was assuming we're posting "what if" scenarios right now and i argued why attractive and resourceful men wouldn't have to commit at all if not for social pressure
>>37220>That's the very definition of a high bar
If a bunch of paraplegics can't get over a two foot bar, it doesn't mean that the bar is high because they all can't do it, it means that this particular population can't get over a low bar. The fact that modern men can't meet these standards doesn't mean it's a higher bar and we should lower our standards, it means modern men are insufficient.
>And in those relationships there's always ONLY ONE woman that's at the top.
Do you have evidence for that other than vague impressions? I only know a few poly people and their relationships seem very equitable (admittedly, from the outside looking in).>>37221>attractive and resourceful men wouldn't have to commit at all if not for social pressure
I guess that's the part I find objectionable; is social pressure really the only reason men commit? I find that really hard to believe, but again, maybe I'm naive. I have a very personal very specific reason to believe that it's not true, but my situation is highly unusual so maybe it's just me.
no. The bar is relative. It would be stupid to assume otherwise. 200 years ago the bar was to be hardworking, not dead of disease/in war and maybe have some land inherited from your parents. >Do you have evidence for that other than vague impressions? I only know a few poly people and their relationships seem very equitable (admittedly, from the outside looking in).
Of course they are when you're looking from outside. Just like social media shows you how everybody is happy and living their lives at their fullest. Please. Watch some Turkish historical soap operas sometimes.
You can have your poly relationship but it will never be 50/50 or 33/33/33 or whatever. One of you will always get more from the man, because the man can only love one woman at a time. That one woman will have power over the others.
>>37223>because the man can only love one woman at a time
To the extent that men (or people in general) are capable of love at all, I just don't see this as true. Romantic relationships are the only relationship we are expected to keep exclusive, and I have yet to hear a strong argument why that ought to be that doesn't revolve around religion or social pressure. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying I have yet to be given a good reason to believe it's true.
>The bar is relative.
I can buy that I guess. But then where does that leave us? Which of those three things I listed should we accept? Men we're not attracted to? Not super hot but at least not ugly. Men who don't have their shit together? Don't have to be millionaires or make six figures, but some stability would be nice. Willing to commit? I don't need all or even most of his time, but I want to be more than just a hookup.
Please understand, I am not coming at this from the perspective of someone frustrated with my love life. I'm happily married. But I look around at the dating landscape and I see intelligent, talented, hardworking, beautiful women who are my friends and colleagues and they cannot seem to find a man who fits these three criteria on even a low level; it's like pick two of the three and the other one is rock bottom. I feel for the single women out there, and I see what to me is an obvious out. Maybe it seems easy to me because I found a good one and am looking at the dating world from the outside in. But it's rising in popularity, especially among younger people; maybe keep an open mind.
PS: thank you for being civil as we discuss this. It's a hot button issue and I know people can get a little crazy when they're heated.
>>37225>To the extent that men (or people in general) are capable of love at all, I just don't see this as true. Romantic relationships are the only relationship we are expected to keep exclusive, and I have yet to hear a strong argument why that ought to be that doesn't revolve around religion or social pressure. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying I have yet to be given a good reason to believe it's true.
Because they can also set bars and have rankings. Everyone of us is unique in some way, for better or worse and men are attracted to certain traits. The man might like A's personality better than B's. Or maybe A simply looks better than B and that's all that the man cares about. The criteria doesn't really matter in this argument. All that it matters is that a preference will always rise to the top.
>I can buy that I guess. But then where does that leave us? Which of those three things I listed should we accept? Men we're not attracted to? Not super hot but at least not ugly. Men who don't have their shit together? Don't have to be millionaires or make six figures, but some stability would be nice. Willing to commit? I don't need all or even most of his time, but I want to be more than just a hookup.
You can only select from the given choices. Or refuse to select of course. Life's not fair and there isn't a perfect system where nobody gets screwed up. Neither for men or for women.
>But it's rising in popularity, especially among younger people
Young people were always like this. I'm relatively young (23) so I remember how it was a few years ago while being able to somewhat think it through. Teenagers are weird because they are at that point where they live their lives purely on instincts. They don't think. They think that they think but they actually feel. I believe that observing the way teenagers interact can teach us a lot about what's deep inside each of us.
>>37227>All that it matters is that a preference will always rise to the top.
Let's say that's true, for the sake of the argument, would that be so bad? Is an inequality inherently 90/10, or could it be 65/35, 55/45, 50.1/49.9? I don't see disparity as inevitable, but if it occurs I don't see it as inherently leading to becoming extreme.
>Or refuse to select of course.
My disposition is to refuse to refuse to select haha. But I see what you're saying.
>Young people were always like this.
Young people were always sexually promiscuous. I don't think they were ever operating openly and in large numbers in the broad space between monogamy and casual sex with many partners.
Women statistically rate something like 2/3s of men as unattractive
b) accomplished/have their shit together/mature
Vague meaningless statement, define it
Are you the same anon who was going on about this on /feels/ months ago? If not, you have her as company anyway lol.
Anyway my feelings are still the same: I'll take an awkward unaccomplished man since that's what I prefer anyway. My standards are only very small and commits…luckily I think this is a bit weird, statistically. At least the small part.
Get this cuckqueen shit out of here. I'm pretty sure I've seen you shoehorn this garbage into other threads as well.
>>37225>Please understand, I am not coming at this from the perspective of someone frustrated with my love life. I'm happily married. But I look around at the dating landscape and I see intelligent, talented, hardworking, beautiful women who are my friends and colleagues and they cannot seem to find a man who fits these three criteria on even a low level; it's like pick two of the three and the other one is rock bottom. I feel for the single women out there, and I see what to me is an obvious out. Maybe it seems easy to me because I found a good one and am looking at the dating world from the outside in. But it's rising in popularity, especially among younger people; maybe keep an open mind.
Ah, I think I see what's going on. Are these friends and colleagues your age? They're women who have hit the wall. They don't want younger men, and younger men don't want them, and for the few leftover good men at their age they have to compete with younger women.
>>37225>Don't have to be millionaires or make six figures, but some stability would be nice
I think this is the problem with your friends. By "not six figures" I'm assuming you mean something like 70k+ and/or significantly more than she makes. That's not "stability" but the expectation for a certain lifestyle, I mean a guy who makes 35k working in a warehouse could be considered stable since he could feed, house and clothe himself on that but that's not what you would call stable am I right?
The expectation for the man to always make more than the woman is just as antiquated as expecting the woman to be a housewife. Today where there are more women than men in college and extensive pressure to increase female presence in high paying occupations you are really fighting the odds trying to find a guy that makes more.
Same. I'd prefer a man as unaccomplished as I. To me, mediocrity is not a shortcoming.
Right now they're just larger onaholes but what worries me is the potential for development in the future. Imagine if they actually managed to give them personalities and they could be substitutes for real people. Why would a guy go for me when they could go for a robot with my personality except prettier. It's really disheartening to think about.
it goes both ways, then you could just get a manbot
This. If they get that
good then you can get the ideal committed robot bf.
If robots become detroit: become human tier damn right I'm giving up on real men. I could just build my perfect bf. No sexual history, no family drama, complete devotion to me, perfect sexual compatibility, whatever personality I choose…couldn't come sooner.
Men use sex dolls when they can't get real women. Nobody is using these because they're "better than real women". It's absurd to think you'll have to "compete" with them… the men who have to rely on sex dolls are the ones who have lost the competition.
Why is it disheartening to think about? I swear, some of you put far too much value on relationships/romance/guys.
Depends what you define as the wall
If it's physical terms of aging, it's not some weird woman only phnemonon, everyone on this planet ages unless you have something wrong with you, as for who ages better men don't ages better nor do women, people with good genetics who take care of themselves age best
And men stick their dicks in anything even things they claim to hate, older women are fetishized to the point where even normie men I've talked to have had MILF fantasies
The wall only exists amoung minds of males and women who aren't mature or mentally stable enough to handle a long term relationship with a woman, people who are worthy of relationships do not believe in the wall
Also, some of the most beautiful women I've ever seen are 40+, just saying
My opinion on sexbots have changed over the years, but I'm essentially back where I started.
At first I had the typical normie attitude of "ew, that's weird. only pervs would want a sex doll"
But as I started interacting with men who were good looking, polite but socially retarded men (with incel-lite beliefs about women) in college who would often seriously consider sexbots as a viable solution over "settling" for a less agreeable and less attractive real girl. This started to scare me a bit, since I saw that these weirdos weren't just fat hairy sex pervs who couldn't get anyone else.
However, the more I thought about it outside the initial feelings of "sad cuz boy would rather fuck fleshlight than me", the more I realized that actually dating whoever sexbots would be "taking away" would've probably have treated me even worse than your average abuser.
As far as society is concerned, it's degenerate, but it will never be as prevalent as woman-hating imageboards claim it will be.
And even if it is, enjoy your robot uprising when the sexbots gain sentience
>>37281>people who are worthy of relationships do not believe in the wall
Are these the same ones having MILF fantasies?
I think the whole thing is kind of sad but honestly my opinion really doesn't matter concerning what other people do as… hobbies… or in their bedroom as long as they're not hurting anyone.
The Wall is only really solid for men. There are tons of women who still look beautiful in their 30s-40s. Men typically don't take care of themselves, so same isn't true for them.
The Wall, like many of the things men try to pick at women over, was just projection all along.
It never really concerned me for the same reasons you stated.
The type of guy who thinks a sexbot is a viable option is one I wouldn't want in my life.
Incels and scorned men think they'd be punishing us, but the truth is, they're in this predicament for a reason. We don't want them because they're shitty and abusive. They refuse to accept their own faults, and we don't want to deal with their shit. This is a solution for everyone.
I readily accept them all opting for robot dolls they can cry themselves to sleep with at night with. All the valid men who want actual, functioning relationships won't find any fulfillment in forgoing human women for robots. All a sexbot wife/gf symbolizes is that the person in question is far too mentally/emotionally stunted, controlling, abusive or immature to be with a real person. It's that simple.
Sometimes, if a man is sexually attracted to a woman and plays mental gymnastics to make her out to be unattractive he is a beta male and insecures
Assuming men have healthy sex drives and find women sexually attractive, they just find attractive women attractive, the only reason why aging would get in the way is if she's grandma level or aging badly due to drugs, eating disorders or other factors
Even then, once you get older, naturally you'll find older women more attractive assuming you're stable, the same reason why when you were in school you'd find other children your age attractive but now (hopefully) you don't
>>37296>Even then, once you get older, naturally you'll find older women more attractive
Debunked with science:
That's true, but only for princesses who have nothing else to offer than physical beauty
Your life experiences confirm the existence of the wall. Why aren't these women in their 30's and 40's chasing college age men who "have their shit together" and have full heads of hair? And why aren't younger men, even relatively younger, chasing these 40+ women who are some of the most beautiful women you have ever seen? This is a phenomenon that people have been observing for like ever. There's nothing new going on here. The mental gymnastics you do to think that polyamory is the future is just incredible.
Someone sure sounds like they hit the wall and are bitter about it.
"MILF" is one of the most popular search terms in porn for a reason, while "DILF" just isn't, and never will be. Who said anything about polyamory? I just don't want to date or have sex with ugly old men. I don't even want their money, since I can make my own.
>>37334>"MILF" is one of the most popular search terms in porn for a reason, while "DILF" just isn't, and never will be
Maybe because most of the people that watch porn are males and the females that watch porn are mostly lesbians or bisexuals that watch lesbian porn. Anyways, I don't think porn is a good way to measure people's sexual preferences.
Nice job derailing another thread guys.
Start a new topic if you want to talk about man hate and 'the wall'.
I just want a robot boyfriend, but this shit will probably only be invented the year after I die or some other bullshit.
Women watch lesbian porn because straight porn is full of ugly bastards who don't care about the women's pleasure. I'd still say my point is stronger than yours, considering yours didn't come up with any evidence at all.
Plus, it's been confirmed that in gender-equal societies where finances aren't a struggle for women, it's flat out not really a thing for young women to be dating older men.>https://theoutline.com/post/6061/older-men-younger-women-evolution-or-bullshit?zd=2&zi=jnvweq5x>In a society based on the model of male breadwinner, female homemaker, women will seek out a man whose economic resources make him a good provider, and men will seek out a woman whose pliability and readiness for reproduction makes her a good housewife. According to this theory, in societies where there’s more gender equality, the age gap between partners will shrink.>That’s exactly what the data shows. Analyzing Buss’s data on age differences between spouses in 37 countries in light of those countries’ scores on the UN gender equality index, scientists Alice Early and Wendy Wood discovered, “As gender equality increased, women expressed less preference for older men, men expressed less preference for younger women, and consequently the sex difference in the preferred age of mates became smaller.”
In agreement with >>37364
, I'll let this die here. All I have to say is: Attractive young people and MILFs >>>> Crusty, hideous old men.
So the guys prefer Asian women meme is true.
Women also watch a lot of Japanese porn. The category is ranked 3rd.
The Japs make good porn, why wouldn't they watch it? I like how Japanese men go down on the women more than other men.
Where is this from? It doesn't look very reliable tbh
I'm pretty sure it's pornhub and that they release stats annually based on an aggregate of logged-in users' search habits. I've also seen aggregate stats based on nation, i think those ones are just based on all visitors' IP address.
Absolutely no reason to think the source is unreliable, nothing wrong with it. You just need to take it in context (that's the part where lots of people fail when interpreting information).
Porn hubs top searches say otherwise though>Absolutely no reason to think the source is unreliable, nothing wrong with it.
Except you know, no valid link, whatever lazy fuck made this didn't even bother putting whatever the fuck website lingo on it or literally anything that would have signaled this is from an actual site and not some bitter loser making this in their basement in Photoshop
No time frame, no control group, no total search number, no publisher, this is one of the worse graphs I've ever seen in my life, defending this clearly and horribly done suspicious graph is suspicious yourself, what conclusion would you exactly get out of this if this graph was true? On what planet is there "absolutely nothing wrong" with a graph that has no traceable sources?
how many of the "female" users in a porn site are actually female? what proportion of overall users are "login users"? how many are using vpn and so on, the analitic can be true, as in, the raw measurement can give those numbers, but i`d take the data with a grain of salt before making wide assumptions, i think thats a problem with a lot of studies done now a day too, the data may be reliable but the scope and population measured are not.
I recommend mastur…
>>37403>The Japs make good porn, why wouldn't they watch it?
JAV promotes unrealistic images of female genitals. It's a terrible problem. Some women these days are even choosing resolution-reduction surgery.
I had a healthy kek thanks anon
>tfw have a non-pixelated vagina
>I readily accept them all opting for robot dolls they can cry themselves to sleep with at night with. All the valid men who want actual, functioning relationships won't find any fulfillment in forgoing human women for robots. All a sexbot wife/gf symbolizes is that the person in question is far too mentally/emotionally stunted, controlling, abusive or immature to be with a real person. It's that simple.
>You can do whatever you want but you are a stupid asshole if I don't like it teheee, I'm absolutely not passive aggressive here.
For fucks sake, let them have their toys. How could anyone ever be so bitter about where men put their dicks in.
Femcel tier. Its like guys telling women that they can date whoever they want but if they don't date them they are superficial bitches. Do you even notice that you could build a grade A r9k post by just changing words in there?
I repeat: It is of no concern for you where men put their dick in, as long as it isn't you. SO WHY IS THIS A PROBLEM?
You're forgetting most of the men who want them don't treat them as simple masturbatory aids but have the retarded political mentality of "real women are bitches and too much work anyway, they'll never love me, I'll get back at them for having sex with this lifeless vessel, that'll show them." I don't give a shit but you can't blame people for reacting to that sort of toxic mindset.
The people who just want to get off are fine, it's way healthier than sleeping around with randos.
I blame people for reacting in the exact same way but taking the moral high ground for it.
"Yeah just fuck your soulless vessel because ALL men who are real men will never do that and basically you are a piece of shit, that'll show you"
The post I quoted for example contained that. Thats what I was talking about. Calling out underfucked incels as passive aggressive bitter bitches isn't that glorious if done in the tone of a passive aggressive bitter bitch.
Also I have a hard time to comprehend for what reason whatsoever I or anyone else should be concerned by another mindset as long as I am or they are not actually involved in this. And since those guys don't want to have anything to do with women anymore, I don't see the need to literally clinch to them and still piss them off just for the sake of… well whatever I can't see the profit here.
Be glad they will be occupied with their toys and not with you I'd say. In my eyes, everyone gets what they want. Incels can play human relationship with a doll they can't hurt no matter how deranged or stupid they act and I don't have to deal with them.
Why are you so mad about the post being "passive aggressive"?
If it means men will stop abusing, raping and murdering us, I fully support it. Like you said, it isn't me, so it's not a problem. Nobody even said it was, so I don't know what your issue is.
And to be honest, nothing I said was even wrong, it just hurt your evidently fragile feelings. Fully-functioning humans get nothing out of robots, emotionally or romantically, so it's not an issue of us losing potential partners. It was literally in direct response and agreement to the things >>37282
I honestly just don't get it. What exactly is your point in bitching about my tone? Did you forget you're on an imageboard or something? Do you screech at 4channers like this? Try Reddit if you need everyone to be sweet lovelies who would rather die than say something harsh on the internet that might hurt an incel reading.
You don't really frequent Reddit, do you? kek
>>37449>If it means men will stop abusing, raping and murdering us, I fully support it.
nta. I don't think it will have an effect on that one way or the other. It won't redeem someone who is likely to do it anyway and it won't push those less likely into actually hurting us. It's just an expensive, deluxe prop for a sexual or romantic fantasy. I don't think someone would necessarily even have to be a misogynistic incel type of person to want one. People, and dealing with them, can be a huge pain in the ass. Not just lovers but even friends can leave a lot to be desired. What if you'd just rather not deal with the frustrating grind of trying to date and decide you'd rather be "single" but "augmented by technology"? It's kind of sad from one point of view but being single can be just fine for some, or at least the best option. They don't have to be some horrible untouchable person for that to be true in their case.
There is a certain nasty undertone to the fears and arguments against these that feels like spitting on cripples for getting a fancy motorized wheelchair. They know they can't walk or run but have resolved to just have their best life on their terms. It seems so hateful and it's always bothered me.
>>37549>People, and dealing with them, can be a huge pain in the ass. Not just lovers but even friends can leave a lot to be desired. What if you'd just rather not deal with the frustrating grind of trying to date and decide you'd rather be "single" but "augmented by technology"?
Then there's no reason to spend money on a robot when I can just talk random real people on the internet free of charge, without making any strong commitments, and use a sex toy for those lonely nights. If a machine, a literal object, is a good substitute for a real human connection for you, chances are, you didn't actually want a human in the first place, and you are not ready to be in a relationship. There are other issues at play that need addressing mentally and emotionally.
>There is a certain nasty undertone to the fears and arguments against these that feels like spitting on cripples for getting a fancy motorized wheelchair. They know they can't walk or run but have resolved to just have their best life on their terms. It seems so hateful and it's always bothered me.
That's because we're talking about the worst of the worst in these cases, who are usually the main ones trying to push the narrative that sex bots are some sort of "revenge" on real women. These are not the equivalent to disabled people. Incels, specifically, and members of the whole "Manosphere" group are one of the most hateful communities I've ever seen, they welcome pedophilia, and they've actually killed several women or just celebrated when women or little girls are killed, raped and/or abused, so no, I don't feel bad for them at all. When I see shit like this, I do not think "Ohh this poor disabled man suffering from No Coochie Syndrome :(". I think "What a disgusting person".
They do stupid things like blaming their facial features, height, race, or society for their bad luck with women, when the truth is that their personalities are so fucking horrible and toxic that nobody wants to be around them. They're so narcissistic that they won't accept this, and they unironically believe that they're entitled to women and sex. Many of them truly believe women should not have human rights, and that we should be returned to being property just so they can get their dicks wet. It's not some inevitable result of being a lonely virgin, they're just that bad. People like that make me sick. Men who actually have love in their hearts and no way to fully express that love definitely don't turn into the kinds of evil shitstains that incels do, and I hate that the latter group tries to convince everyone they're the former.
>>37556>Men who actually have love in their hearts and no way to fully express that love definitely don't turn into the kinds of evil shitstains that incels do,
I mean, it happened to my little brother.
Most likely because he was allowed to lurk on those shitty forums and be influenced by those poor excuses for men instead of an actually good role model.
That's probably a good part of it. I still don't see how that means he doesn't/didn't "have love in his heart" though.
The people that end up as "incels" don't have love in their hearts, and they happily poison others.
If your brother can't/couldn't wake up from that shit and abandon it, then yeah, he's most likely turned into a shitty, horrible person. Decent people don't end up that way. Sorry.
That's a really heartless and dismissive way of looking at it.
Tell that to people who wish rape and death on an entire sex.
It's extremely hard to summon up any empathy for incels with the amount and intensity of hate that comes out from them. Especially as they have more and more incidents of murdering women in the past couple years.
That aside though, there is a lot of "femcel" or man hate right on this board that is very very stomach turning. The difference being femcels almost never go on killing sprees. And that does make a huge difference that can't be overemphasized. But the hate is still cringey and sad.
I'm just saying that deciding "oh he must have always been bad" is just a really easy excuse to not give a shit about them, an option you don't have with family.
NTA and only tangentially related, but I find it really funny when someone says "Incels are fucking horrible" and someone else chimes in with "WOW why do you hate men so much?? misandrist feminazi man-hater smh".
It's like they subconsciously believe all men are incel-tier awful, and they're trying to scold the other party for their own projections.
Sorry, but no matter how many times I'm rejected and how depressed I am, I don't start going on horrible tirades about how all men deserve to be gassed, hung and/or treated as slaves.
That's the sign of being an awful person, and by propagating these thoughts, you basically forfeit your right for anybody to treat you like you're a good person.
You should probably help your brother out of that hateful community instead of telling other people that they're heartless for not giving incels the benefit of the doubt, even though they've got a body count by now. How many women need to die before you'll stop babying them?
>>37580>Sorry, but no matter how many times I'm rejected and how depressed I am, I don't start going on horrible tirades about how all men deserve to be gassed, hung and/or treated as slaves.
I do not believe this for a second.
Seriously. This may be news, but believe it or not, not everyone is an entitled piece of garbage who thinks the world should either give them sex or burn to the ground.
I'm not saying that incels are good or babying them, I'm saying that believing they were awful from the start is naive and unproductive.>You should probably help your brother out of that hateful community
I'm doing that, but if you're to be believed then it's pointless because you think the only way he could only end up so hateful is if he was secretly always like this from the beginning.
For sure. Most people aren't that way at all. You're not most people though.
I already said he was most likely influenced by them in >>37569
and you agreed, meaning it wasn't an organic state. If he just suddenly started acting this way without any outer influences, then, unfortunately…
On that note: A person can definitely improve their personality, but incels don't do that. In fact, they refuse. They'd rather sperg all day, posting abhorrent things, and actively try to worsen people's lives.
Textbook projection at work, GG.
We already did the "no u" stuff. I still don't believe. Any sane person will loathe incels. As natural as the other anon here being protective of her brother.
Whatever you're getting at here is something else and has everything to do with contempt for them bleeding over onto other men and women. Not that that is entirely unnatural either.
Now you just sound like you're reaching very, very far and reading things that simply aren't there.
Not sure what you mean, but good luck with whatever it is you're dealing with, anon.