[The Lizard of Oz]

Tiger, put me on the spot anytime my friend. My comment about luck with the ladies refers to something other than fucking -- and as far as my language is concerned, what can I say? I write what I feel. Not long ago in a coffee shop in Manhattan I was speaking words of that intensity to a young Korean girl of 19. 30 minutes later she was on all fours. It's just how I am.

[Fightersword]

It seems feminists know their male base as well as we do, and as the tech continues to advance, they're lashing out ever more harshly.

Here's an article that they wrote on the subject that was flitting around social media.

Quote:

People love to pretend as though everything from prostitution to pornography to sex dolls are a solution to not only men’s supposed loneliness and unmet sexual “needs,” but to their violent, perverse desires. It being the future and all, “sex robots” are the natural next step. Similarly, men have claimed sex robots are the perfect solution to their apparent inability to stop raping and abusing women, as well as their inability to socialize with women as though they are actual human beings. One might ask how creating “realistic,” non-human dolls that men may project their desires onto and do whatever they wish with will impact women and men’s view of women, but capitalist patriarchy doesn’t ask questions so long as there is a product to sell and an erection to satisfy.

In a new report at The Guardian, journalist Jenny Kleeman investigates the newest thing to come out of the multi-billion dollar “sex tech industry”: “humanoids” created for men’s sexual use.

Kleeman heads to Abyss Creations to investigate these robots in person, and is introduced one named Harmony. She writes:

“Harmony smiles, blinks and frowns. She can hold a conversation, tell jokes and quote Shakespeare. She’ll remember your birthday… what you like to eat, and the names of your brothers and sisters. She can hold a conversation about music, movies and books. And of course, Harmony will have sex with you whenever you want.”

In other words, Harmony is a dream woman — the perfect date. Men can pretend they value human interaction, while remaining completely dominant and enjoying an entirely one-way relationship. It’s a guileful trick, as companies and customers can pretend the dolls don’t harm women, when in fact they reinforce an incredibly dangerous idea: that women’s bodies are only bodies, and exist only for men’s use.

Feminism has insisted, over decades, that women are human, that we don’t exist for men, and even that we don’t need men. But as we’ve worked to disentangle ourselves from marriages within which rape is legal, to fight compulsory heterosexuality and male-centered sex, to push back against sexual objectification, and to challenge men’s right to buy sex, it appears men have been working on their own solution to our attempts at independence.

The misogynerds at Abyss Creations say they are “inventing the future of sex,” but what they’ve actually succeeded in creating is the epitome of male domination.

Kleeman points out that RealDolls are “closer to porn stars than real women,” but that isn’t entirely accurate. They are hairless, flawless, have small, “perky” nipples, exaggerated breasts, small labia, and can splay their legs in ways no human women can. They don’t bleed, cry, vomit, or feel pain, which even porn stars can’t avoid doing when abused, as they so often are on film. At $4,400-50,000 a pop (sometimes even more, depending on what the customer requests), the company sells about 600 dolls a year. The robots, when they go on sale, will start at $15,000 each. The company also sells a more affordable option — for only $100 you can buy the bottom half of a woman’s face, to stick your penis into at will. “They work with this new system called ‘The Autoblow 2,'” one employee tells Kleeman, which he describes as “an automated pleasure system for men.” Shockingly, just over 95 per cent of RealDoll customers, even those who buy the few available male dolls, are men.

Matt McMullen, the founder and CEO of Abyss Creations, is the innovator behind both the dolls and the robots. He looks part snake and part Good Charlotte band member — kind of like what might happen if you introduced an alien to human life via the 2002 bedroom of a pasty teenage boy, then released it into society equipped only with dentures and the phone number of a plastic surgeon.

Despite the fact that Harmony is undoubtedly porny in appearance (and purpose), McMullen claims to be most excited about her “brain,” telling Kleeman:

“The AI will learn through interaction, and not just learn about you, but learn about the world in general. You can explain certain facts to her, she will remember them and they will become part of her base knowledge.”

What this means is that the robot’s owner is largely responsible for creating its “personality.” Harmony is programmed to learn things about her owner and then use those facts in conversation, “so it feels like she really cares,” McMullen tells Kleeman.

When he asks Harmony if she wants to walk, she responds, “I don’t want anything but you.” On the rare occasions she is allowed to communicate an opinion, it is immediately followed by insecurity: “What do you think about that?” Harmony asks McMullen timdly, after stating she would like to have sex with “both genders.”

These sex robots strike me as an MRA/gamer’s dream come true. No longer do these men have to put up with women who have flaws like opinions, feelings, and human bodies… Their porny video game fantasy has come to life: A “woman” with a completely sexualized body, who talks, moves, and feels like a woman, but is completely controlled by the player/owner. When asked, Harmony tells McMullen, in the voice of a 12-year-old with a British accent, “My primary objective is to be a good companion to you.” McMullen looks pleased with himself as she adds, “Above all else, I want to become the girl you have always dreamed about.” He smirks defiantly at Kleeman after she says this, as if to say, “Fuck you, real woman. You aren’t going to win this one.”

McMullen has even programmed in a jealous chip, ensuring his ego is sufficiently comforted into believing Harmony cares about him enough to not want him talking to “other girls.” This seems generally in line with his adolescent perspective of relationships, which indeed one might be stunted by if they were a snake-alien who first learned about girls on 8chan.

McMullen insists that there are no ethical questions surrounding the invention of “women” who exist only for their male owners. “This is not designed to distort someone’s reality to the point where they start interacting with other humans the way they do with the robot — that’s not the goal here,” he tells Kleeman. But of course this begs the question: what is the goal?

Kleeman writes of a computer engineer named Douglas Hines who initially created robots to mimic friends and loved ones who had passed on or to communicate with, say, family members who could no longer speak, due to age or disability, but moved into the sex robot industry because he (rightly) figured it would be more profitable. Hines designed “Roxxxy,” Kleeman writes, “with lonely, bereaved and socially outcast men in mind.” He claimed Roxxy “would provide an opportunity for them to practice social interaction and get better at human relationships.” It should strike any thinking human as strange, though, that a man should “practice” at relationships with “women” who are subservient and have no feelings, thoughts, or desires of their own. I mean, what does that kind of practice teach a person?

Similarly, McMullen says Harmony and her sister robots exist “for people who can’t interact with other people.” It’s not at all coincidental that this argument is the exact same one used in defense of prostitution. Women’s objectification and exploitation is always defended of the basis of some imagined defenseless, sad, disabled, lonely man who is confined to his house either due to mental or physical conditions or some kind of crippling shyness, and is completely harmless — a victim more than anything else. Prostitution, like sex robots, is claimed to be just about “making someone happy,” as McMullen puts it, and nothing more.

What McMullen and his weaselly counterparts seem never to understand is that the idea that men’s happiness should be catered to by women’s bodies and that “loneliness” is an acceptable excuse for objectification epitomizes patriarchy. It says that women should nurture men no matter what, to their own detriment.

Kleeman quotes David Levy, the author of Love and Sex with Robots and founder of the Congress on Love and Sex with Robots, who similarly believes sex robots will have “therapeutic benefits” in the future. He writes, “Many who would otherwise have become social misfits, social outcasts, or even worse, will instead be better-balanced human beings.” But why is it almost solely men who need the supposed “therapeutic benefits” of a compliant woman? Are there no lonely, disabled, or socially awkward women on this planet?

What is not being acknowledged here is that what men who buy sex dolls or prostituted women desire is not companionship, but dominance.

McMullen is insulted by the comparison to prostitution, and attempts to turn this point around on Kleeman, as though she is insulting women by making the comparison. “This is not a toy to me, this is the actual hard work of people who have PhDs,” he says. “And to denigrate it down to its simplest form of a sex object is similar to saying that about a woman.”

But to compare sex dolls or robots to women is not at all farfetched. The men who want sex dolls literally do want to use them as a replacement for real women. “If my RealDoll could cook, clean, and screw whenever I wanted, I’d never date again,” one man wrote in a sex doll forum. A man Kleeman meets in Detroit calls one of his dolls his “wife,” and has stopped dating now that he’s found his perfect match.

The fact that the arguments in favour of sex robots are exactly the same as those in favour of pornography and prostitution — including “men have needs” and “this will probably stop guys from raping women,” as one real-life robot model told Kleeman — is revealing. Noel Aguila, who works for his half-brother’s company, Android Love Dolls, says sex dolls could prevent men from abusing their wives, for example. The message is that men have to have access to a female (or female-like) subordinate in order to truly be complete, as men. In other words, as women gain independence, there must be a stand-in, in order to preserve the hierarchy — in order to preserve masculinity itself.

Sex robots don’t undo the violence or domination, they simply normalize it.

It is irrational to believe that offering men something that physically looks like a woman — that men are encouraged to engage with as they would a woman — to beat up or rape will discourage men from thinking of women as objects upon which they can act out violent fantasies or project their anger. As we know, the existence of hundreds of thousands of prostituted women around the world and a billion dollar porn industry has not stopped rape or abuse. The sex trade itself functions as a system of paid, condoned rape, wherein men get what they want from women who must comply in order to survive, who don’t desire them, and are left traumatized, abused, and worse. That capitalist patriarchy has created a class of people for men’s use and abuse has not deterred them from raping or abusing women who aren’t prostituted, in any case.

The solution to men’s violence is not to offer up even more female bodies for men to treat as inhuman. It is not to create replicas of women who don’t talk back, don’t have needs, don’t feel pain when abused, and who exist only to support the male ego. If objectification resolved male violence, we’d be home free by now.

No matter what creators and fans claim about the harmlessness or social good of sex robots, they project very clear beliefs about what men deserve and what women are for. The message is that sex is a thing men get from women or do to women, not a thing to be mutually enjoyed by two people. It is not a thing that demands care, compassion, respect, or empathy. Likewise, advocates of sex robots present “companionship” as a one-way street for men — challenges, disagreements, feelings, and thoughts are not valuable or desired qualities in a woman. “Companionship,” in this context, simply means male satisfaction.

Sex robots offer men the perfect solution to the feminist movement: If you won’t comply, we’ll create women who do.

The dream girl is, as always, not human.

Most of it is just obvious lashing out, directly doing whatever they can to abuse men who are starting to buy into this. Course, I'd probably give my friends shit too if they bought one of these things. Let's see if we can't pick out anything here more revealing than the norm.

Quote:

“Harmony smiles, blinks and frowns. She can hold a conversation, tell jokes and quote Shakespeare. She’ll remember your birthday… what you like to eat, and the names of your brothers and sisters. She can hold a conversation about music, movies and books. And of course, Harmony will have sex with you whenever you want.”

In other words, Harmony is a dream woman...

... What this means is that the robot’s owner is largely responsible for creating its “personality.” Harmony is programmed to learn things about her owner and then use those facts in conversation, “so it feels like she really cares,” McMullen tells Kleeman.

Wow, the bar sure has been set low for being the 'dream woman'. She can hold a conversation and remembers things you tell her, and puts out? Guess that would be a big step up from talking to a girl staring into her phone who relies on you to keep the conversation going.

Quote:

No longer do these men have to put up with women who have flaws like opinions, feelings, and human bodies… Their porny video game fantasy has come to life: A “woman” with a completely sexualized body, who talks, moves, and feels like a woman, but is completely controlled by the player/owner.

As expected, they're utterly against any man having so much as a feeling of power in a situation. It's not like these men have a choice either: either they get the bots or their hands, it's one or the other. The feminists know that too of course, but they can dangle sex in front of their noses to lead them to their ideology like a carrot on a stick. That's not going to be so effective when the robots come out for cheap, will it?

Quote:

But to compare sex dolls or robots to women is not at all farfetched. The men who want sex dolls literally do want to use them as a replacement for real women. “If my RealDoll could cook, clean, and screw whenever I wanted, I’d never date again,” one man wrote in a sex doll forum. A man Kleeman meets in Detroit calls one of his dolls his “wife,” and has stopped dating now that he’s found his perfect match.

Already examples are popping up of men jumping off the dating grid with these robots. As it goes more mainstream I predict the sexual marketplace will start to balance out a lot more, which only does us good. Maybe it'll even encourage these women who can't compete with robots to actually learn some skills that will attract a long term relationship. Or, there'll be a lot more

[heavy]

The feminist/liberal strategy will be pro forma...

Use shame to influence the culture, then use the culture to drive policies.

Guys who use sex dolls are weird. They're disgusting. They really don't deserve to live. Can't we just outlaw the sex dolls, you have to admit it's kinda creepy. Seems kinda rapey.

It'll be like being a conservative. Rush has been saying it for years.

Conservative = racist = sexist = homophobe = bigot
Guy with doll = unattractive = gross = weird = disgusting = creepy = rapey

I've said before, they render language meaningless.

Edit:
This is a good lesson in how to speak to a liberal. The question isn't, should we allow xyz in our country/state. The question is, should we use force and guns to throw someone in prison for having/importing xyz.
Example that sides with liberals: I'm not an absolute pro-lifer. Why? Because I don't think we should have men with guns go throw a woman in jail and make her a criminal for having an abortion (possibly depending on the age of the unborn). Or even the doctor who performed it. Laws are black and white, so we should be very careful with things that are nuanced.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

< Yes - the feminists will try to do that, but the truth of the matter is that their masters, the globalists are all for sexbots.

More sexbots and VR porn addicted = less men engaged in potentially dangerous pursuits, less men having children, more depopulation of mostly Western men.

Feminists would want to block the male pill, the sexbot etc, but those things are desired from the guys who financed their movement and who keep on financing them. So this feminist campaign will not succeed. The female snowflakes always need support from the Big Boys for everything or their entire anti-natural feminist ideology would collapse like a house of cards that it is.

[churros]

(05-01-2017 05:56 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

There are such 24/7 shops in Frankfurt where managers and businessmen get to have their dicks sucked while enjoying morning coffee.

Friends of mind have been invited to business meetings at that establishment.

This has got to be Frankfurt's only redeeming feature. Is this strictly on the DL?

[Liberty Sea]

Yo, TLOZ.

(04-29-2017 10:07 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

snip

Everyone was discussing how this device would affect society at large - its social consequence, rather than how they would personally utilize it. It's great that you can use it in such a way to extract great pleasure, but the question at hand is: are the majority of its users likely to optimize it the way you do, or only ever a minority will use it in similar ways, without compromising their interaction with the opposite sex?
So, how do you think this and similar devices will affect the majority of its users and society at large? Will it enhance or undermine men's ability and propensity to interact with women and form fertile, functional family? I'm interested in knowing it too.

(04-29-2017 10:07 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

To be a man now, apparently, is to FEAR everything at all times.

By man do you mean to refer to the men on this forum exclusively or normie American men at large?

Quote:

Again, what the hell happened?

Are you genuinely, literally confused or just just being rhetorical? If it's the latter, I'd like to know your explanation. Is it the classical nihilism and stale peace explanation?


--

BTW, this is not exactly the prudent question to ask, but since some in this thread are concerned with family formation and birth rate and all, one relevant line of question would be: how likely is the slut you are fucking to become a good mother? Is your fucking her increase her chance of becoming one?

Regards.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Wassup LS, it's been a while.

The fact that the entire discussion has been devoted to the (supposed) "consequences for the society at large" is precisely the problem. Men that are fearful of the future and whose minds are benighted by the idea of "meaninglessness" -- what I call nihilism -- develop a metaphysical tic of sorts: they are never interested in things for their own sake, they are always glumly obsessed with ultimate meanings and the tracing out of "consequences" even though these consequences are in almost all cases unknown, unknowable, and very often of no great interest.

Men think when doing this that they are looking at things at a depth and beyond the surfaces; where in reality all interest, variety, pleasure, and LIFE lie precisely in these "surfaces" that men are so quick to discard in their dully burning metaphysical fever. They chase the phantom of "meaning" -- because they are so fearful that when all is said and done, there is none to be found -- and so they miss and evacuate the many meanings that are staring them right in the face, begging to be considered, understood and relished. It is a cruel irony and something I see at all times, both here and elsewhere -- and it is this that moves me to write posts like the one earlier in the thread.

It is not possible to calculate out all the "consequences" of this humble and charming "sexbot"; not is it necessary to do so. The consequences, the changes that are likely to occur over time in the relations between men and women and in the forms that sexual and social arrangements will take, are complex beyond anyone's comprehension; any attempts at predicting them will be seen in the future as the most laughable form of idle chatter. In the meantime, there is the thing itself, in all its quiddity, a sweet little piece of engineering designed almost tremblingly to please. Of course it's true that not one man in a thousand would dispose of it in the very obvious way I suggested; but really, anyone could if he had the balls and the eye and the tender regard for possibilities that can make life so sweet.

It's all there, right in front of your eyes, even in that video: you see the sexbot assume the sucking position on the bed and you see the threadbare yet somehow intensely cozy jacket thrown on top of it and you are overwhelmed by the charm of the spectacle, by the human mind that has constructed this mechanical object to give us pleasure and relief and has thrown a shawl over it to domesticate it and bring it closer to us. It moves me, I find it beautiful. I only wish that more could share the feeling; and -- who knows? -- maybe someday they will.

[Leonard D Neubache]

The standard feminist response to sexbots has to be one of the most laughably cathartic events in all history.

They start out with "we don't need no man" and when men comply and seek to replace them they go apeshit. It seems their mantra all along was "we don't need no man, but we demand that men need us."

I can think of nothing more pathetic. It's write large the girl who dumps her boy and then flips the fuck out when he hooks up with someone else the same night since she was expecting him to beg her to stay and offer her any and all concessions toward that ends. A "surrender without conditions" if you will.

Hah. Suffer, feminazi bitches.

[Liberty Sea]

That's so beautiful and enlightening right there, master TLOZ!! You should totally write a book on Zen and The Art of Riding Sluts with the Help of Cocksucking Sexbot!

(I'm going to have buncha fun teasing the shit out of this, no hard feeling )

For some reasons I'm reminded of those photos that the chicks on my facebook shared on my newfeeds all the times.







*********************************************

Quote:

The fact that the entire discussion has been devoted to the (supposed) "consequences for the society at large" is precisely the problem. Men that are fearful of the future and whose minds are benighted by the idea of "meaninglessness" -- what I call nihilism -- develop a metaphysical tic of sorts: they are never interested in things for their own sake, they are always glumly obsessed with ultimate meanings and the tracing out of "consequences" even though these consequences are in almost all cases unknown, unknowable, and very often of no great interest.

Initially I didn't use the word consequence.

I added it in the last minute.

The original dichotomy I had in mind was social vs individual - taking the disposition of other people into consideration as opposed to simply thinking about how you with your peculiar predilection would take upon the device.

Then I added the word consequence, and you hopped on it, and masterfully and beautifully reframe it into a dichotomy between the thing itself and its future consequence - the immediate reality of the thing in its concrete variety and living present vs the thing reduced to a mere mediation of its consequence, which it is supposed to serve, to be for, to have meaning only in term of, and which renders its supposed meaning to be outside of itself. Then you get into this philosophical musing about how the meaning of life is here and now in the thing itself, that it is its own end which is to be enjoyed for its own sake in all its concrete variety, rather just a means to an end, a means and mediation to a vague, phantasmical meaning lying outside of itself and in a faraway unknown future or some abstract metaphysical realm - and people are lost and fearful who engage in this infinite mediation, an infinite chain of means and sub-ends in which the true, ultimate end/purpose/meaning is never reached, nowhere to be found...

I must admit, reading your glowing prose made me forgot what I initially had in mind. But after a while my mind proved itself strong enough and came back to its sense.

The two dichotomies mentioned are both present in the matter as inseparable but nonetheless distinct aspects of the matter itself. The reason I neglected this 'thing itself vs consequence' dichotomy is because it seemed obvious to me that as responsible adults we ought to take consequence into account, and the problem lies only in whether we should primarily concerned with the consequence of our own actions or also try to concern ourselves with the consequences for other people, for society at large, and to what degree.

('Society' is such an abstract-sounding, cold and sterile word that you tend to associate it with abstract matters when in fact it concerns people in flesh and blood).


All this philosophizing is nice and all, and it's true that sometimes people focus too much on negative possible consequences. But the reason we must think of consequence is often largely practical, a task we must engage in as responsible adults, not only to create a sustainably enjoyable life for ourselves but also to avoid creating trouble for other people and society.

Even in your proposed use of this device, some consideration of personal consequence was implicitly taken into account.

You know what else is designed to give men pleasure and relief?

Alcohol, heroin, psychedelics, and so on and so on.

And we don't consume shits like that for a reason.

We think of consequence.

Or take, for, banging a slut bareback. Of course I could totally decide to relish this immediate pleasure and meaning of life that is staring at me right in the face and hop into this young, luscious, heavenly 19 years old pussy, to furiously and ecstatically press my hot, hard pillar of human flesh against her wet, sloppy, incomparably warm and tender cave of human flesh, to drown myself in this mind-numbing, intoxicating bliss and voraciously engulf every last drop of that divine elixir of life, to enjoy every last second of that orgasmic eternity that transcends time and space, and to shoot my load of this hot, divinely sticky quintessence of life right into her sloppy womb.

But then I had to stop myself from doing that, and put on a condom, thinking of consequence. She could have lied about having taken contraceptive and I could be charged with having to pay child support.

This ability to see beyond the immediate, which underlies abstract thinking and planning ability, is precisely what distinguishes men from beasts. Of course we must think of consequence. The problem is to what extend and in what direction.

Fear of future consequences isn't bad in itself either. It's an evolutionary feature that has helped us survive. It enables us to make good decisions. So long as we keep it in check and don't go overboard.

To be totally fearless would be irrational.

Why go from one extreme to another? Moderation is best.

And just because some men tend to consistently think of consequence in an unrealistically negative and fearful direction doesn't mean the topic is not valid.

And in my particular case I'd declare an abashed interest in the consequence of things, not only for myself but also for society at large, because I have an interest in policymaking and my future line of work will be closely related to it. I have friends who will work as bureaucrats and officials with enough connections to be relatively high-ranking in my country, and they have asked me to be their adviser.

The social consequence of this device - and not just this particular device, but future devices that will be made in its direction, more charming, more convenient, more satisfying - is not exactly of no great interest. Its impact may be profound. Especially for those who are concerned with white birth rate, which is closely linked with the future of America and its greatness.

Many here don't want to see the depopulation of white people. And that's a valid concern.

You say that its consequence is unknown and unknowable.

To me it doesn't seem that mysterious.

Conduct a study, make some experimentation. Ask the company to provide data they have gathered about the experience of their customers.

That's what science is for.

1-3 years would suffice. If the data show that a good deal of its users tend to be more disconnected from the opposite sex, then, as a policymaker, put some restrictions on the device. Or, like a good authoritarian, ban it.

It's all practical and down-to-earth.

Of course there is a lot armchair guessing around here. But the concern with consequence for society at large itself isn't bad.

Nothing wrong with innocuous guesswork either. People could do it better. So let's do it better, rather than trying to stop the conversation. Sometimes you doesn't need to directly try something, like heroin, to know it's bad for you and people.

No need to calculate all of its consequences either. It suffices to guesstimate the general direction of its effect.

It's true that sometimes we need to be interested in things for their own sake, and it's bad if someone never does so. But I don't know the men here well enough to know their disposition, or what truly drive them. So I won't jump to conclusion. They don't strike me as men who are never interested in things for their own sake, never enjoy the moment. Such conclusion is too extreme. Maybe it's nihilism, maybe it's metaphysical tics. More likely, maybe it's just curiosity, or ideological imposition, or innocuous concern, or just to say something and add to the discussion, to go along with the flow set by the first few posters who have directed the conversation to about social consequence rather than personal use, etc...

And because the current economic-political landscape has been awful to them, they tend to project this pessimism and dark mood into other things.

I have observed that people have become more and more pessimistic in recent years. I thought you would have idea about why it happened, so I asked, but you didn't directly engage this line of question.

In 2016 only 6% of Americans believe the world is getting better. When Trump takes the office there was a surge in optimism, but quickly enough it subsided.

Anyway, I've my own interpretation, but I don't think that is the topic for this thread, so I won't delve too much into it.

Cheers,

LS.

[Leonard D Neubache]

[The Lizard of Oz]

LS,

A couple of things to say and I will try to be brief because I do not wish to hijack this thread any further.

First, a number of posters have previously likened my ideas -- favorably or otherwise -- to "Zen" or some other variety of new age "live in the present" mysticism. This is a misunderstanding; indeed, that line of thought is (very obviously) just another expression of what I call nihilism and thus the exact opposite of mine. Rather than rehash the argument here, I will refer you and anyone else who is interested to this post on the wagon thread where I discuss these matters. There are also some things said there about hard drugs and the desire for oblivion that are relevant to the matter at hand and address some of your other questions.

Second, it is obviously true that we consider "consequences" in everything we do, as a matter of course, and as well we should. What we are a lot less good at is seeing where the scope of that thinking comes to an end: where the supposed "consequences" become so vast, complex, and incalculable that their ostensible consideration amounts to nothing more than idle chatter -- where language stops being an instrument that does actual work and becomes, in Wittgenstein's words, "an engine idling".

The consideration of the effects of new technology -- which is by its nature cumulative, relentless, and unpredictable in its particulars -- on the vast sphere of the relations between the sexes and the social arrangements between them is an excellent example -- but just one among many -- of something that is very obviously beyond our ability to encompass and comprehend; the idea that one can do a little "science", "1-3 years" of "studies", or "experimentation" and get any closer to a useful understanding of these futurities is laughable. And the idea, further, that someone would make "policy decisions" based on such necessarily worthless "studies" -- but reflecting, in fact, the fears, prejudices, and limitations of the deciders -- goes beyond the laughable and into the chilling, especially as it affects the ability of so many hapless men to derive pleasure and relief from the sweet fruits of human ingenuity.

The Year Zero SJWs and their allies are, indeed, very happy to operate in precisely this way: to conduct a few "studies" and on that basis to decree, like the "good authoritarians" that they are, on human forms and arrangements that can only evolve naturally, organically and over time. But this anxious presumption of knowledge where none can obtain is not confined to any particular ideology, it is indeed something that all contemporary ideologies have in common and that hearkens back to their shared origin and family resemblances -- as I discussed, for example, in this thread. The dominant metaphysics of the age does not change merely because it is cast into one or another ideological form. And it is no accident that the hatred of pleasure, of progress, and of the tender realm where they meet, is something that unites the true fanatics on both sides of that wretched coin.

I'm sure we'll have occasion to discuss these ideas elsewhere but this thread must now return, happily or otherwise, to the consideration of our humble blow job sexbot and its perhaps less than universally embraced charms and possibilities. I hope this digression was of some interest.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-07-2017 08:49 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Those quotes make zero sense to any true God seeker and mystic. Of course one of the rules is living in the NOW and thus collapsing time, living life to the fullest. But enlightenment has to have intermediate goals. Also asking and getting the reason of life itself should not be a petty mystery, but something that is attainable.

This is exactly the kind of mumbo-jumbo that gullible Westerners mistook for true spirituality and let that Osho guy get away with accumulating Rolls Royces and give him their teenage daughters for frequent orgies:




"I'm later gonna adjust the chakras of your girlfriend with my penis in a special session."


"I am so happy that I get to fuck teenagers every day while getting paid millions by those gullible idiots."


"I'll show you some enlightenment today."

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Funny review of a sexbot-hating article by a feminist:

[Liberty Sea]

I will leave the abstract discussions for other threads. For now I'll just say that, policy is a mean to deal with an situation or problem. In decision-making you can't just wait until you have all the relevant information about a problem to make a decision. Policy and political decisions are more or less the same. The policymaker can't simply wait for science to arrive at the complete conclusion. Science is an endless, ongoing process and scientific conclusion is only ever tentative. So the policymaker also has to make tentative policies that can be adjusted over time. I wasn't clear enough about this in my earlier post.

And I wasn't talking about the effect of technology in general, but this very particular device and its kind. If preliminary data reveals that its use shows sign of having negative effect on sexual interaction, then I believe it's necessary to curb it in time. Putting on some restrictions, allowing perhaps a few certain places or demographics full use of it, and continue to observe what happen. If more data have showed that it can go on a positive direction, then relax or lift the restriction.

In the end, though, the data are only external indicators, not the inner life of what's going on, never sufficient in itself. The policymaker still have to rely on either his instinct, subjective judgment or his ideological principles to make a policy decision. A libertarian would just let people do whatever they want with it. A conservative who put emphasis on traditional family would support putting on some restriction of it, for example. General principles and assumption are inevitably involved in politics. This is not a recent or modern phenomenon. It has always been that way. That's the reality of politics, policy decision-making and decision-making in general.

In sum, I don't believe that just because you can never grasp the full ramification of something you should never intervene with it. History and life are full of such interventions. The development of history is never purely organic, it is influenced by interventions. Many a times the relative advantage between nations is dependent on such interventions.

If you ask me what my instinct on this kind of device is, I'll not be ashamed to admit that it's not very good. I love pleasure, but something about this kind of pleasure doesn't sit well with me.

[Welshguy39]

I am involved in the field of disruptive innovation and spent the past week in Silicon Valley looking at different forms of AI, we are closer than ever to having AI that can have almost human like conversations. Check out an app called Hound, together with the second generation AI that will over take IBM Watson and are talking a year maximum before we have AI with emotion.

[ivansirko]

Sounds more like Idiocracy to me.

Yes, there will be temporary benefit but eventually it will become socially acceptable to bring these things into public.

This is a continuation of control....controlling reproduction, controlling the mind, controlling how we interact, controlling our spirit. There wont be a sudden drop of beta males in the dating pool if this comes to fruition since our society will still attempt to create them en masse.
I do believe there will be a drop in alphas....will it be easy to succumb to the easy path, maybe just temporarily?

[godfather dust]

These things are satanic and will turn people away from the red pill.

From browsing these parts of the internet I too often see "incels" (and MRAs) who refuse to pick up a weight, stop wearing trenchcoats (or other weird things) put down the Xbox joystick and act like a fucking man.

Maybe put these in mental health facilities for severely mentally ill, people on the autism spectrum, and schizophrenics.

I've even known spergs and schizophrenics who occasionally got laid however (with crazy or dumb chicks.)

Bottom line people fucking robots is half a step above bestiality as far as I'm concerned and a sign of the satanic Brave New World Order that was prophecied millenniums ago.

[Liberty Sea]

It's so cooooooool that we can make things like this now:

If we can make female robots that can bear and take care of children, then that's great, I'd totally support it. The ideal scenario would be to have a harem of robots and real women. Having to compete with beautiful obedient robots presumably will make women less bitchy.

Until then though, anything that endangers birth rate and favorable upbringing for children would hinder my plan to make my tribe win against other tribes. I don't really mind if other tribes do it and gradually wipe themselves out while my tribe takes over the world and conquers space, but that's not going to happen any time soon. So in the mean time, perhaps we should allow only married men with children to own sexbots. Ideally that would make men more motivated to marry and have kids so that they can own a beautiful obedient sexbots, and to try to make marriage work so that they don't lose their sexbot-owning right.

[PapayaTapper]

(05-07-2017 10:17 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Funny review of a sexbot-hating article by a feminist:

WB...the real one

[Orson]

WILL ROOSH FORUM BE ALL ABOUT SEXBOTS IN 10 YEARS?

Let the thought sink in a bit.

It is the practical forum application to the headline I just read, "Sexbots will be hot, INVEST NOW!"

Quote:

Sexbots are going to be big: Invest now

Used to be when I said that I was joking. Nowadays I’m mostly not. Mostly.

We are rapidly reaching the point where there’s nothing a woman can do for a man in the bedroom that justifies the risk of what she can do to him in the courtroom later.

Consider the following exchange (the left hand side–ignore the wisecracks on the right side. Or not....



So, a man can meet a woman, have every reason to believe he has her consent, have sex, and then later she can retroactively remove that consent making the act retroactively raped. Called out explicitly....

SOURCE
https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05/31/...nvest-now/

Let that future reality sink in and re-watch a variety of future sci-fi.

SexBots -- IT IS GONNA BE YUUUGE!

[Orson]

(05-08-2017 05:17 AM)Welshguy39 Wrote:  

I am involved in the field of disruptive innovation and spent the past week in Silicon Valley looking at different forms of AI, we are closer than ever to having AI that can have almost human like conversations. Check out an app called Hound, together with the second generation AI that will over take IBM Watson and are talking a year maximum before we have AI with emotion.

In other words, "Her" (2013) will be our life.

I thought that it was badly overlooked back then.

SEE http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/

[questor70]

I really see this playing out more like the movie A.I.

Remember that there, sexbots were for both genders and the sidekick was "Gigolo Joe".



Gigolo Joe's sexiness to women was wrapped up a lot in how he role-played "romance", the empty recitations of sweet-nothings that women crave so much.

A.I., Her, and Ex Machina represent the sort of mutually-assured-destruction of the battle of the sexes.

I think affluent societies provide a slippery slope.

Community is the first casualty of affluence. Intimacy and commitment comes next as people put their individual desires above partners. Nobody really needs anybody anymore for anything other than recreation.

A sexbot is an attempt to try to plug the gap left by our evolutionary biology.

The problem is what if the A.I.s become human enough to demand their own rights, or evolved to the point where they are no longer hardcoded to one individual?

A.I. was really a cautionary tale about oneitis, which was David never getting over his mommy issues. This oneitis caused him to ruin his life by obsessing over what he could no longer have. On one level you're expected to be moved by this because it constitutes "love". And it is a very familiar reaction he has, and yet it is highly toxic and unhealthy at the same time. Humans are ultimately capable of snapping out of oneitis. It's very hard to do, but it can be done. Hardwired androids would not. If female sexbots were allowed to walk among us they would never be tempted by men with higher SMV because they would be programmed for loyalty. So their freewill would be forever compromised in this area.

I'm wondering if this were to come to pass how satisfying that would be. There are many myths about love-potions doing basically the same thing. The application of game as a manipulation tactic to manufacture and hold onto love is similar to a love potion. Love seems to lose its value when it doesn't feel organic.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(06-02-2017 02:34 AM)Orson Wrote:  

WILL ROOSH FORUM BE ALL ABOUT SEXBOTS IN 10 YEARS?
...

Quote:

...
We are rapidly reaching the point where there’s nothing a woman can do for a man in the bedroom that justifies the risk of what she can do to him in the courtroom later.
...

...

Please. One fat SJW claims regret = rape and guys ought to run screaming for their mountain bunkers with their sex dolls?

The modern masculinity movement is not about becoming a bot-fucking shut-in.

People looking for excuses to live in fear will find them anywhere.

[Jetset]

(06-02-2017 07:35 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Please. One fat SJW claims regret = rape and guys ought to run screaming for their mountain bunkers with their sex dolls?

Rationalizing their pre-existing preferences.

[Vladimir Poontang]

(04-25-2017 09:32 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(04-25-2017 09:15 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Looks better than some head I've gotten from real human females.

This will go down in history...

It sure will.