The Sex Bots Have Arrived
Last month Dr. Helen blogged about the development of sex-robots.
Now Susannah Breslin — the most talented journalist writing about pornography today — has a fascinating report on an industry in transformation.
Via The Porn Convention – Forbes:
Fixx is the market research manager for the Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network, an online adult company that bills itself on its website as “THE #1 ADULT VIDEO ON DEMAND THEATER IN THE WORLD!” Among other properties, AEBN owns PornoTube, an X-rated YouTube, and xPeeps, an adult webcam site that encourages users to “xpose yourself.” It also produces the product Fixx is hawking.
I stick my finger into the rubbery, flesh-colored slit on the side of a plastic grey peanut the size of a very large loaf of bread. This is RealTouch, an “award-winning male masturbator” designed by a former NASA engineer that syncs with adult movies to simulate sex for the male with which it is interacting through your computer’s USB port. The device retails for $325, and the package includes 120 RealTouch VOD minutes, anti-bacterial cleaner, and a 90-day limited warranty.
More recently, the company has begun marketing the RealTouch JoyStick, the lingam to the RealTouch’s yoni, which is to say it looks like a dildo. Available only to adult webcam models at this time, the joystick serves as a remote control for the RealTouch device, enabling users in remote locations to have “True Internet Sex™!”
Per Fixx’s instruction, Savannah Steele, a busty blonde porn star in a lab coat, moves the joystick, and the mechanism tightens around my finger and increases speed.
“It feels like having sex with a robot,” I announce. I extract my finger and wipe it off with a wet wipe from the box on the table.
Earlier this year I reviewed Doug Rushkoff’s graphic novel A.D.D Adolescent Demo Division. The sci-fi vision of a near-future with hyper media-savvy youth. He predicted this development and also the response many Millennials will have:
This was foreseen…though the proper response has yet to be formulated:
[From C. S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength]
Excellent. Many thanks for sharing.
“in the endtimes they will not give up their sorcery”
You beat me to it. C.S. Lewis strikes again.
I’ve a quibble with the quote’s applicability here. I’m pretty sure that this largely isn’t about men who won’t be content with actual women. Rather, there’s a considerable subgroup of men who no longer feel that actual relationships of any sort are attainable. If sexbots ever became a reality (shudder), I doubt that many of the purchasers would otherwise be successfully dating, much less marrying and starting families.
“Pride and lust”? Lust, maybe … though a sufficiently thwarted and desparate desire for love and companionship could also account for it. As for pride, life has generally already kicked that out of the sort of fellows who’d buy a sexbot. I feel a complicated mixture of disapproval and sympathy towards such men, and when tempted to judge them harshly, I can’t shake the feeling that they’re partially victims of something that’s broken in modern male/female relations … something of which things like porn are more a symptom than a cause.
You make some excellent points. My own thoughts center on the innate dynamic of the thing: the incentives that operate to nudge people further away from one another in response to sociological and technological developments.
It’s an enormous subject, far too large (and important) to cover properly in a comment here, but as a teaser (for an essay that will appear sooner or later at Liberty’s Torch), consider the following train of potential developments.
1. A hardening of the current legal regime pertinent to marriage, divorce, child-support and child-custody issues, such that the fathers’-rights movement, the covenant-marriage movement, and all associated initiatives oriented toward raising men to legal equality with women as regards marriage and para-marital arrangements, are rebuffed with prejudice.
2. The emergence of an as yet unrecognized venereal disease, less curable and more debilitating than syphilis.
3. A proliferation of “scary stories” (e.g., axe murderers and murderesses stalking victims through eHarmony or Match.com) that discourage single Americans from seeking romantic partners in the few ways that remain available to us.
4. A presumption-of-guilt rule applied to accusations of “date rape.”
5. Great progress in the digital simulation of human-level sentience and emotions.
None of the above developments is flatly impossible; indeed, most of them appear to me to be more likely than not. Items 1 through 4 would produce an environment that’s far more threatening to the single American looking for love than we currently experience. Item 5 promises the availability of synthetic romantic partners that just might be good enough companions that we can forget, for long intervals, that they’re not “real.”
Yes, you may well shudder. But the sociological dynamic in operation today, which has intensified the tensions between the sexes beyond anything a prior generation endured, would merge seamlessly into such a scenario. Contemplating it, I find that once again, I’m glad to be an old man whose time on Earth will soon be over.
What a load of bovine excrement.
Like all good feminists, you attack male sexuality as some sort of evil and venerate women as once-pure creatures corrupted by society. Have you considered, for one moment, the woman’s role in all of this?
It is because women do not find commitment and respect to be sexy. Women will sexually reject a man who is too respectful and not forward enough (“let’s just be friends”) and will torpedo marriages in which they get bored with their husbands, financially ruining these men in the process. Because they no longer need provider husbands, and because birth control shields them from pregnancy, women can now go straight to what they find sexy: dominant, confident, sexually forward men who don’t supplicate to them and don’t fear the woman’s emotional state. This does not describe most men; it certainly doesn’t describe most educated men, who are taught to be passive, to always avoid offending people, and to respect women. They have to fulfill their sex roles of protector and provider, lest they be labeled “pigs.”
Women, on the other hand, are taught to simply grab what they want, no matter what anyone thinks. Self-love is paramount. They are taught to not only ignore their sex roles of nurturer, caretaker, and male helpmeet, but to denigrate such roles as “sexist” and evil, irrespective of context.
So if women refuse to fulfill their sex roles, then go on to divorce or break up with good but “boring” men (as society applauds them), why should men commit to any one woman, knowing that his commitment would be worthless when she decides that she’d rather have another man?
Better to be a jerk. It’s what she wants.
Blame the churches. Too many refuse to do what the Catholic Church requires (but too often squishy priests fail to enforce): if you are divorced from your first spouse and married another, and the first marriage happened after you were both baptized, and the first spouse still lives and the marriage has not been annulled on the grounds that it wasn’t validly contracted, you are not to be admitted to Communion unless and until you cease and desist committing adultery by having sex with your so-called spouse and confess the offense you have committed. This sanction also extends to the person who knowingly marries a divorced person while the first spouse still lives or one who becomes aware of the previous marriage later and does not immediately cease to have relations with the adulterous spouse (the one who unknowingly enters such an invalid marriage is, in effect, a victim of rape-by-fraud, and is thus innocent of any culpability for sex occurring between the time the invalid marriage was contracted to the time he or she becomes aware that their so-called spouse was already married).
You do realize, I hope, that denial of Communion is a complete non-event for most Americans. Your suggestion would be an extremely ineffective tool with which to change anyone’s behavior.
I’ve always been puzzled by this attitude in the Catholic church. Doesn’t Jesus’ statement in Matthew 9:9 come into play?
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
I knew a Catholic woman who divorced her husband because he cheated on her and left her, but she said she could not return to a “state of grace” with the Catholic church. Shouldn’t the exception for marital unfaithfulness apply in this case?
She either isn’t telling you something (i.e., she’s dating) or she’s fallen into a common misconception about Catholic teaching on marriage.
You are allowed a civil divorce in specific cases. You remain according to the church sacramentally married, but not civilly. If you fulfill those cases, which are all common sense (abuse, financial mismanagement, need to protect children, and adultery), you can set up a separate household. You are expected to remain in chastity with the hope of reconciliation. That doesn’t mean you are a target for further abuse or unfaithfulness. If you meet the requirements of civil divorce, you are welcome at communion.
Mt.19.3-12 relates the teaching of Jesus Christ, esp.v.9 on this subject.
Divorce and remarriage to another is permitted only to the innocent party in a divorce for fornication. The guilty party must remain celibate for life. The RCC binds here where the Lord did not bind, disallowing remarriage even to the innocent party. Then the RCC invents an annullment procedure, not found in Scripture, to use as a weasel clause for favored applicants.In some cases they bind where God has not bound; in others they loose where God has not loosed. Masters of deceit and ambiguity- the brotherhood of Darkness.
Actually, the Church did not invent anullment, although they take it rather far. The idea of a “mistaken transaction” declaring the original marriage retroactively invalid because it was created under false pretenses, exists in Judaism. However, we don’t use it much, if at all, and I suppose in any case a religious divorce would be required, just in case.
Then again, Judaism never considered polygamy immoral. It’s the decadent, immoral Romans who insisted on monogamy. (Not that I think we should start it (polygamy) up again.)
By the way, the stuff discussed above is onanism (or in Judaism, “wasting seed”), of course.
not quite true. even in bayit sheini (second Temple) times, rabbis started putting constraints on polygamy (such as that a man could only marry a second wife if he could provide for both as well as satisfy both s3xually). In the Ashkenazi “wing” of the Diaspora, around 1000 CE rabbi Gershom of Mainz banned the practice entirely and this bn has been in force ever since in the Ashkenazi communities’ and was adopted later in the Sephardi world and Edot haMizrach (for some only after their expulsion from the Muslim wold)
the one exception is if the man gets a permit from 100 rabbis living in at least 3 different “countries” (heter meah rabbanim). this rare device is only pplied in unusual cases uch as a man whose wife has been missing or years and is presumed (but not proven) dead.
The Church has authority to bind and loose, for Jesus said to the Apostles, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.” As first demonstrated by Matthias, the authority of Apostles is transmitted to whomever they ordain as bishops, and as Paul instructs Timothy, this includes the power to ordain bishops and transmit this authority to the next generation. Thus, every bishop today has the ecclesiastical authority of an Apostle, and Pope Benedict has the ecclesiastical authority of St. Peter.
Now let us consider the prohibition on remarriage after divorce: in Mark the prohibition given is absolute, while in Matthew the clause, “Except for pornea,” is included. While pornea is usually translated as “fornication” or the more general “sexual immorality,” another valid translation is “unlawful marriage.” Rendering it thus does not contradict the quote as rendered in Mark, for in truth an unlawful marriage is no marriage at all. Thus if the so-called marriage was dissolved because it was incestuous, polygamous, or entered under fraud or duress, those who entered such a marriage are not bound because the marriage was never valid.
“The word “Dekh” used by the book’s protagonist above is the most important idea of the book, of the same significance (and comparable meaning) to “grok” in Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land.”
Actually, from that definition, “dekh” would be an absolute antonym of “grok”.
Further, grokking is supposed to be beyond the ability of humans to do, while dekhing seems to be a pretty standard thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
To grok ( /ˈɡrɒk/) is to intimately and completely share the same reality or line of thinking with another physical or conceptual entity. Author Robert A. Heinlein coined the term in his best-selling 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land. In Heinlein’s view, grokking is the intermingling of intelligence that necessarily affects both the observer and the observed. From the novel:
Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man.
—-
To Dekh something is to become one with it — in one sense. They’re comparable and interrelated — not the same thing.
You cite “dekh” as seeing through something and rejecting the falseness it presents.
“Grok” is equated it eating.
“Dekh” would be the equivalent of vomiting.
How do you manage to construe those two as comparable?
You’re supplying your own definitions of the terms there, not mine. “Dekh” is not the equivalent of “vomit” nor is “grok” equivalent to “eating.”
Reading you two guys unable to either GROK or DEKH each other reminds me of the contempt I had for your generation when I first heard “grok” and “grody”, etc. You were undereducated and unable to use good English to express yourselves, so you fell back on subjective imagery from fiction.
I read Heinlein’s “Stranger…” and, while I generally liked it, I detested his gushy over-definition of a term of his own invention, “grok”. If “grok” is to “identify with” something or someone, how easy is that to say in English?
But I can hear your generation’s answer to that: “But it’s so much more; it’s like everything and stuff; know what I mean? Like GROK!, you know? Later.”
I am using your definition:
“To “dekh” something is to perceive the hidden patterns and biases programmed within a piece of media. When you “dekh” something, you are seeing the mechanisms that are being used to trick you. The strings on the puppet. The Great Wizard of Oz is really just an old man playing with smoke and mirrors.”
If seeing through trickery and implicitly rejecting it is the same as understanding something completely as to make it a physical part of your being are the same to you then one has to question any use of slang on your part.
And “grok” is the equivalent of eating. Had you actually read “Stranger in a Strange Land” and not just wikied up a slang term from it you would know that.
Clearly your attempts to claim to understand “Boomer culture” must be treated as highly suspect as well. (Of course considering a book written by a G.I. Generation author to be emblematic of Boomers is questionable as well, but then that just demonstrates the fundamental flaws in generational theory to begin with.)
And of course that relates to Pelaut’s comment, and his ignorance that the word comes from an author of one generation, embraced by another generation, and being argued about by people from two other generations. You do not need good English to understand that, although it does make one wonder why good English requires the use of a Latin word to express an emotion. Perhaps some words can express a more complex thought in a single term as opposed to using a paragraph, and are thus adopted. Not understanding that the English language is full of such terms, innate, borrowed, or invented, displays a rather striking lack of knowledge of English, good or otherwise.
I didn’t say they were the same. I said they’re related.
And I have read Stranger in a Strange Land. Yes, Heinlein was GI Generation, but it was embraced by people like my Boomer Dad who gave me his copy.
“Mike looked faintly surprised. ‘”Grok” is drink’.”
Stranger in a Strange Land, page 303 (Ballantine PB 1968).
That’s its literal Martian meaning. But as Dr. Mahmoud remarks, ‘grok’ can have literally hundreds of translations into English, some of them antithetical.
The more important point, perhaps, is that “dekh” and “grok” are both coined words. “Dekh” is imagined slang; “grok” is an imagined Martian-language word.
No one suggested they are equivalent in meaning, only in relative significance.
In SiaSL, to “grok” is to understand completely and thoroughly; grokking is fundamental to the enlightenment gained by learning Martian from Mike.
In A.D.D Adolescent Demo Division (which I have not read), to “dekh” appears to be a key element of the common world-view; everyone looks at what’s around them with an eye to seeing the underlying pattern of manipulation.
Not the same, just the same size, so to speak.
Many thanks for clearing it up.
How odd, I’ve always had the exact opposite reaction. I thought the sexbots would end the sex slavery trade. Pimps always take the cheapest route, and durable plastic bots would be much cheaper and last much longer than actual persons. I thought the robo brothels would replace the real ones, and the human trafficing would be severely reduced or even eliminated.
But you think the sexbots would encourage men to be meaner to real women? I don’t know. Men are already very mean to women, and the sex trade is so horrific, I think we should give the plastic dolls a chance. It’s hard to see how things could get worse.
“Men are already very mean to women…”
People are mean to each other. Neither gender has a monopoly on that.
My experience is that men are usually gentlemen. When I was single, I occasionally had a bad experience, but most of the guys I dated were good people. I think the reality is – if you treat yourself and others with respect, you attract similar people.
I like nice guys, I don’t like doormats. I have a healthy sense of self-esteem and wanted to find a guy who was secure in his masculinity and who respected himself and me.
As far as the porn – I have known people whose marriages it has destroyed. It seems like it’s just going to get worse. Relationships take work. Marriage takes work. Making a commitment and sticking to it is hard sometimes. Sure, you love and are in love, but there are times when you drive each other crazy. So, do you honor the vow you made, or go with your feelings? If your wife gains weight bearing your children, do you abandon her for a younger woman? If your husband is boring because he’s working 60 hours a week trying to support the family – do you abandon him for someone more charming?
The problem with porn – it gives a high “reward” for very little actual work. But it’s like eating candy. Sure, candy might taste better than steamed broccoli, but it’s empty calories. That’s what porn is like.
I don’t have a problem with men glancing at a pretty girl walking by or even occasionally checking out some racy pictures. But a steady diet of porn does to the brain what lots of candy does to the body – it provides quick stimulation followed by a crash.
BTW, let’s not denigrate men just because they are visually stimulated. Yes, men need to take responsibility for the bad things they do, but they are no worse or better than women. We all have areas where we are screwed up and where we need to take responsibility.
I suspect “sexbots” will never be legal for this exact reason. It would end the exploitation of innocents by those who regard themselves as “superior”.
In the minds of such megalomaniacs, the whole point of power is the ability to exploit, torture, and kill, and get away with it. It’s the “outlaw chic” factor, the same as illegal drugs; simply put, it’s only fun and “self-actualizing” if it’s a clear and open violation of society’s mores, with no consequences;
By comparison, if some self-anointed elitist spends a few hundred thousand euro on a sexbot, and proceeds to take a crowbar to it, most people will assume he’s just a frickin’ idjit. There’s no “ego-boo” in that, for the “enlightened one”.
Similarly, the smarter ones won’t be letting pasty-faced, overweight nreds have them, either. If they do, those nerds will not reproduce and create more nerds to do the scutwork of fixing the elite’s tech toys.
After a couple of generations, they end up at E.M. Forster’s The Machine Stops, because you can bet the “enlightened ones” will not only never stoop to using a screwdriver, they won’t have a clue which terminal to twist on, either.
They may hate the menials with a passion, but a few of them are at least bright enough to realize they need one or two to change the fuses.
Morlocks and Eloi. The problem is in figuring out which is which.
clear ether
eon
“Dekhing” is actually the first stage of the processs currently known as “hacking” and “cracking”: Before you can “hack”/”crack” anything, you need to be able to “intuit” how the program’s innards are constructed from its outward behavior to such an extent that you can modify its behavior. The claim to have “intuit”ed/”Dekh”ed the program is easy to make, which immediately leads to the need to demonstrate the ability to modify the behavior to back the claim up, leading to the difficulty in teasing apart the “Dekh” aspect from the “hack”/”crack” part.
The excerpt thus reveals the deep differences between the two speakers: The pornwatcher has a shallow conception of women and sex, so is easily fooled by their implementation of a correspondingly shallow model. I conjecture that the protagonist finds women to be more complex than any porn he can “dekh”.
By the way, the same goes for polygamy: a man is a polygamist because he has a shallow view of “his” women. Once one is let into a woman’s inner self and allowed to unwrap the layers, one discovers the wisdom that one is more than quite enough to occupy oneself.
Oh, and don’t get me started in the “Holy Spirit as feminine aspect of the Trinity”: you don’t want to hear me babble on for hours…
The pornwatcher has a shallow conception of women and sex, so is easily fooled by their implementation of a correspondingly shallow model.
Such an idealized view of women. Keep in mind that women have equally shallow conceptions of what is sexy in a man, mistaking brutish arrogance and sexual promiscuity for manliness.
Once one is let into a woman’s inner self and allowed to unwrap the layers, one discovers the wisdom that one is more than quite enough to occupy oneself.
Women are not the morally superior sex; this post illustrates that mistake. Here’s the takeaway quote:
The modern Christian misconception that women generally don’t experience strong sexual desire is a result of Christian wives not keeping their chastity prior to marriage and Christian husbands becoming less dominant and thereby less attractive to their wives (and the wives themselves rebelling).
You’ve obviously studied game and probably read your share of Roissy. There is a hole in that story — namely, game and sexual promiscuity are ultimately sterile and unfulfilling.
This is not to say that Game Theorists are wrong about women. It’s more complicated than that. It’s a question of emphasis and attitude and omissions uncoupled from something we might call higher morality and civilization.
Game falls into what sexuality is like in a state of nature — that is, barbarism. It can teach us what life is like, or could be like, if we strip away the veneer of civilization. And as Hobbes said, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. (Game, btw, also doesn’t adequately address the issue of violence.)
Among the ideas it sidesteps are two issues — one, men are every bit as bad as women (in other words, men can be gamed by women), and two, Game doesn’t offer an internal morality that leads to fulfillment (that is, it violates natural conscience and thus cannot lead to fulfillment.)
Just as some people bash Christians for having an unrealistic view of women, game theorists hasn’t properly come to grips with traditional Christian sexual morality — its social function and its ability to fulfill the good of the partners. (In fairness, most Christians have forgotten this, too — even the ones acting in a way that works.)
The proper attitude toward Game comes from Jesus, Be ye wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Sexuality is oriented toward something and someone, sexual pleasure is not an end in itself — it’s a side effect of that other thing.
As far as sexbots — this is very very bad, just as the author says. It will further twist the good of sexuality toward a shortcut. People will get used to the shortcuts, and miss the Good.
All of us want something we call home. You won’t get home or build a home with sexual promiscuity. And a Christian man (or any moral man), acting out Christian morality (or a morality that comes from natural conscience), can easily transfer the useful concepts and behaviors of game without reverting to brutishness. The term is “gentle” “man”. Women are attracted to them. It’s what they really want: A man who is gentle, but has a strong morality and the fortitude to defend it. Take what you need from game — the need to eliminate whining, to be thoughtful and decisive, and to do things that activate a woman’s romantic instincts. Leave the rest.
So let me convey some observations from a guy whois pretty far on the other side of the bell curve from adolescence.
Good sex is a lot more that in-out-repeat. I’m a gourmet chef, and so let me draw an analogy for you: The act of eating involves selecting the right side dishes to compliment the main course, picking out the right ingredients. preparing them with tender loving care, arranging them on the plate so they are visually appealing, and then finally eating, doing so slowly as to savor the layers of flavor. Using that analogy, a porn video is then like a close-up video of someone’s face while they are chewing a corn dog.
For most porn is (to use your analogy) a twinkie. It’ll do in a pinch but it’s not very filling nor is there a lot to it.
I mean really once the whole OMG BOOBS! thing wears off it’s not all that interesting.
Another thing is that the author ignores the pay porn actresses recieve. They can earn a full time wage in under two hours depending on their contract holder. That is attractive to some.
The author also ignores the fact that things like snuff films and child pornography are already illegal forms of entertainment and will likely continue to be.
As is giving minors access to pornographic material.
He reminds me of the crusaders who claim that videogames cause violence. “Oh if they do it in a game it may make it happen in real life”.
Ah no because most people have IQs over that of a turnip and can recognize the difference.
Those who can;t have bigger problems than wanting to bang their Roomba.
Here’s the thing, though: yes, snuff films and child pornography are illegal. But the reason why is because both involve committing crimes. With sexbots there’s no crime in “murdering” one since they’re not human. Technically you’re just smashing a machine. But the damage done to the psyche of the person doing it is still there.
“The Supreme Court today upheld, by a 7-2 vote, controversial provisions of a child pornography law that made it illegal to promote material presented as child pornography even if the material in question isn’t actually child pornography. Or involve actual children.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme_court_upholds_virtual_child_porn_law/
Virtual child pornography has been held to be illegal. We can make child sex dolls illegal under the same principle. This would also work for snuff dolls, although they’d be harder to detect.
I don’t foresee how that would in anyway be an enforceable law. When the technology is there for lifelike, virtual sex with robotic “women” we can pass a law making it illegal to market a version that looks like a child but people would still be able to acquire them (or make them themselves by customizing the legal versions) just as they can get any other black market good.
@Swindle
People can acquire anything with the right contacts. Young people won’t likely have this.
Robots need programming for everything including pain. Sealing off varius aspects makes it harder to modify them.
And BTW, I looked into this ruling a bit more and what’s being criminalized here is PRESENTING material as child pornography that isn’t.
Doing a computer-generated cartoon of a child being raped by an adult is not child pornography and isn’t illegal. Neither is it illegal to do a pornographic film where 18-year-old performers look and act like children. It’s only illegal to advertise them as child pornography, claiming that the “performers” are underage.
Very, very well said.
Keep your filthy hands off of ROSIE!!!
I* long ago “dekh”’d Obama.
Men will turn to sexbots because keeping a wife properly is too expensive, tiring, and socially prohibitive beyond the means of the average man. Sexbots are an economic replacement for the modern woman, not the traditional wife.
Further, most men with an ounce of sense do, in fact, want to raise their own kids when they’re not having sex, which seems to get lost on the majority of commenters on their sexuality.
Here’s the deal. A sin is not bad because it’s evil, it’s evil because it’s bad for you.
Perfect summary.
As a mother of three daughters, the “women aren’t porn stars” issue terrifies me. When they get older, they won’t be pressured to merely have sex, but performance sex. I finally got sround to watching Girls from HBO. Some of the scenes lean this way and For as graphic as they were, they were not in any way sexy. I needed to shower. I dont want my daughters treated that wway. Also, I’m convinced at this porn expectation is the reason for the fascination with hairlessness. The porn stars do it, and frankly if you are involved with many partners, it makes it easier to clean up.
Then there is my son. I’m less wow worried about him because I think we will b able to explain the consequences to him and have him listen. He’s just a reasonable boy. That said, even in Gen X I know of more than few men with this problem. Two divorces from this too.
That Forbes reporter talks about his finger far too much to be credible…
I am 69 and don’t care at all about sex. I know what is being thrown in my face when I watch all those commercials for Viagra, etc. I am supposed to be a sex-starved she-creature. God designed menopause for a good reason. We are not supposed to become pregnant after a certain period of our lives, and for a darn good reason. I really don’t care whether or not I engage in sex, don’t feel a need for it. No hormones left in my body and my husband is not the most affectionate person in the world. He constantly makes fun of me and my opinions, so I really don’t want to have sex with him. He wanted me to be independent and then when I show my independence he gets really cranky. So, no don’t care, I personally will be glad when he is gone.
In such situations it’s preferable to spend time with your sons, daughters, and grandchildren.
Um, you want to keep your own kids? Good luck having any kids at all, with a sexbot, Max.
(Also, good luck getting a traditional wife who’ll put up with your having a sexbot in the house.)
Hmmm, maybe the sexbot will create little replicas of kids, for children? Or, you can build kids yourself, in your workshop. No muss, no fuss and no diapers. You can keep them until you get tired of them, at which point you can send them to trash heap. Much superior to having actual children, no? They’ll never talk back, take the car keys or get into trouble!
/Yes, that was sarc.
No, sexbots won’t end the sex trade; they’ll only encourage more cruelty towards actual, flesh and blood women, who will be treated more and more like machines.
Francis Porretto, I salute you for that quote from C.S. Lewis! Spot on!
“No, sexbots won’t end the sex trade; they’ll only encourage more cruelty towards actual, flesh and blood women, who will be treated more and more like machines.”
People tried to make this case with violent videogames…and failed.
Fact is that for those of us with IQs higher than that of certain vegetable breeds the difference between fake and real is pretty well-defined.
And if they aren’t then whoever that person is has bigger problems than wanting to have sex with their Roomba.
Betty, I think you missed the point there. Max said sexbots aren’t a replacement for a wife, they’re a replacement for a “modern woman.”
Apologies for any misunderstandings.
I submit that a virgin wife who takes her vows seriously and bears him children is what most men WISH FOR at some point growing up, and that this ideal image motivates a great deal of the motivation for the classic beta male model.
Sexbots are what a large number of men will SETTLE FOR if they don’t get it by a certain common life window of opportunity, especially if the other plausible options are women with other men’s life experiences, nostalgia, and children. None of life’s actions are unforgivable, but a great deal are irrevocable.
Masturbation, by whatever means, becomes an habitual practice with some because of rejections and/or failed relationships. The female who perceives that she is used as a chattel; not loved as a person, and the male who perceives that he is used as a “walking paycheck”; not loved as a person, may evade further emotional pain by turning to blowup dolls, vibrators, or some other nonhuman expedient in order to obtain imagined intimacy and affection.
The fail-safe point is always the decision, conscious or subconscious, for one party to use, rather than love, the other person. The moral is: When seeking a romantic relationship, maintain an insistence on unselfishness, sincerity, integrity and commitment. Otherwise; prepare to hurt.
What will sex bots lead to? Look up the movie Cheri 2000. Pretty bad sci-fi flick, but the early parts describe where this is going pretty well. Relations between men and women are so bad, people take their lawyers with them when they go to singles bars. The lawyers have to hash out a date contract before their clients go out. Such a hassle that most just keep robot girl/boyfriends.
The hooker industry wont go away, they’ll just be high end, expensive, exotic experiences.
Eventually it will catch on, even something the majority will indulge in. Given all the potential cost, difficulty, and emotional pain of maintaining a normal relationship versus a robot girlfriend built to order, upgradeable, and it comes with a ‘mute’ and ‘get me a bear button’ on the remote… all for a $150 a month payment, well, economics will push people to the latter category. You cant fight math, that’s what Progressives do.
There was a young man fromRacine/
Who built a sexing machine
Concave and conves it would serve either sex/
and pleasure itself inbetween
Carn, the exact same argument was made about porn, back in the 70′s.
It will help people work out their darker urges, it’s just fantasy, nobody really gets hurt, it will protect women and children! Those who might have attacked them will simply work off their fantasies harmlessly!
And so on.
Didn’t work out that way, did it?
Look around you.
We don’t live in a more peaceable, less violent, less exploitive, world.
Everything over the past 20 years or that’s been hailed as the cure-all for society, which will make it kinder, gentler, better and improve relations between the sexes has turned out to be a disaster.
about a year or so ago the japanese invented a robot woman that could clean the house and do certain limited chores. it was mentioned that another version was coming out with the sex option. the robot i saw demonstrated in video looked very life-like and was very cute – typical japanese girl/woman. right after that i saw something about feminist groups protesting that the robot girl looked too young.
feminist groups will fight to the death anything that allows men to go elsewhere for sex/marriage/family. proof? v.a.w.a. always gets a bill called i.m.b.r.a. attached on the night before passing. it is the international marriage brokerage relations act. the false logic used to promote it is that it protects foreign women from nasty, violent amerikan men. it requires any u.s. man going through a foreign dating service to furnish so much info., including all past personal info., as to allow the person receiving this info. to steal the man’s credit, at a minimum. nothing is required from the woman. what this bill effectively does is make it even more expensive and dangerous to go get a foreign bride, which is the real purpose of the bill. they also only give the man a couple weeks to get to know her if she comes here, then she has to leave. millions of illegal dangerous foreigners allowed to flood us, but u.s. men must be controlled. it puts the foreign wife search out of economic range for most young men.
back in robot world – you know, a ‘bot to clean, cook, etc. doesn’t sound like a bad thing. wonder do they need investors? sounds perfect. there’s probably a joke here somewhere about coming home early and catching my car mechanic checking her oil. some questions: would i be jealous and tell her to get the he!! out? probably have a whole industry develop just to sell x-bots. will marriage be extended to man/bot unions? can you have more than one botwife? polybotamy?
Dave, before the sky falls, please tell us your understanding of the First Amendment. It’s a plainly written document, not difficult to understand. Please don’t try to skate away by telling what you don’t think it is, tell what it basically means from your world view.
I’m not making a political or legal argument against pornography. First Amendment isn’t relevant to this discussion.
But Dave your your reply is an answer; you don’t have even the faintest idea what it means. You should have just said, “I want the freedom for me and mine and for everyone else it’s problamatic.” Take a second to think what historical company that puts you in. Yes, I’m putting words in your mouth, show us how they are wrong words. I’m begging here Dave… Not!
” You should have just said, “I want the freedom for me and mine and for everyone else it’s problamatic.”
Where did I say that?
He didn’t argue that anything should be banned. He pointed out some of the perils of the issue. There are perils inherent in any issue, and in some issues the perils are particularly salient. You see, this is how mature people discuss freedom: not just by pointing out that it is or should be free but what problems might arise because of it, so we can be prepared and educated without having to resort to bans and censorship.
This is a reply to peter38
“Most of the sex acts in porn disgust emotionally healthy, self-respecting women. So what happens to a boy who’s trained himself to only be able to climax with porn star fantasies instead of real women?”
All due respect,load of $h!t. Women hate female porn stars,that much is true, but it’s based on jealousy over the woman’s body and,if you believe in evo psych, fear that “the other woman” will steal “her man”. Listen to how they describe them, “fake,plastic,unhealthy” etc. These are terms that don’t really mean anything. All they do is tell you that there is a visceral level of disgust towards the “actress”,but if you dig deeper, you will find out that most women feel intense shame over their own bodies and at the prospect of revealing their body to others (men,especially) and hate women who don’t. It isn’t the sex acts they hate. Show the exact same sex act in the context of a “committed relationship” or where the woman is “rewarding her man”,i.e. in a situation of power and women view the whole matter completely differently. Change the context and the reaction changes from hostility to “empowerment” and celebration. Try it out for yourself. Also, it isn’t the porn that makes real women suck at sex, it’s the idea that she doesn’t have to do anything beyond spread her legs. “You should be grateful” she lets you put “that thing” anywhere near her. The whole “empowerment” message that makes sex attractive to women, makes it unattractive and emasculating to men,throw in a healthy dose of apprehension on the part of the woman (feeling the woman is attracted to him is a key component of what makes men aroused) and you got yourself some pretty crappy sex,no porn necessary,just the general girl power hoorah hoorah message women have been spoonfed since the 70′s.
“The problem of porn isn’t necessarily that it shows naked people and sex acts; it’s that it depicts the pimp-and-prostitute model of exploitative sex as normal.”
See, women getting this idea is the problem. How many women are going to take the time to learn how to give a good bj if they feel they’re being “exploited” by it,and viewed as a “prostitute” by the men? Not many. Even prostitutes don’t like to think of themselves as prostitutes, that’s why feminists call them “sex workers” instead.
“And in enjoying a porn film a man usually doesn’t think about how that 18-year-old woman got there and what kind of circumstances would lead her to choose that life. (Go out with a few girls who act like porn stars on the first date and you’ll find out soon enough what painful early life experiences often fuel promiscuity.)”
Every woman’s got a story of “exploitation”, that doesn’t necessarily make it true. It’s now classified as “domestic violence” if you don’t allow your wife to spend you into the poorhouse, ironically, it’s also “domestic violence” if you do. There are whole industries dedicated to convincing women they’ve been “exploited” in such a scenario so lawyers can collect on their divorce.
Regarding the women in porn point…Some women,many of them actually,wind up in porn because men are stupid enough to pay for something they to give women for free. It is an urban legend that they are all indonesian sex slaves or drug addicts. They are adult human beings, it’s actually misogynist to assume they’re unable to make choices, both stupid ones and smart ones, all on their own. There are female porn stars with nearly as much money as Donald Trump. It is actually the MEN in that industry who are exploited,believe it or not. If you don’t believe me, check it out. Compare the salaries of the most popular male porn star at a given moment with the most popular female porn star. The women always make 5-10 times the amount the men do. It’s a feminist wet dream of reverse 1950′s situations. There are lots and lots of women who LOVE wielding undeserved power over men and will fight to protect such an arrangement,despite all the blather we’re always hearing about “equality”.
Long story short,modern women(even porn stars,look how crappy porn is today compared to the talented women of the seventies,before empowerment culture really took hold in the cultural psyche) suck at sex. It isn’t porn’s fault. They don’t care about what men want or about pleasing them. They think if you aren’t pleased with the mediocre,lacklustre, emasculating sex they provide,you must be gay. Female porn stars and promiscuous women being exploited is a sexy myth for whiteknights to stroke to. The real reason women have sex young,often, and without reservation is widespread fatherlessness. There are reams of studies that point to this in everything from mice to monkeys to humans. Being exposed to their father at a young age delays female puberty,suppresses promiscuity, prevents drug use and alcohol abuse.
The only real abuse women are suffering is from people telling them that normal heterosexual sex is exploitation,that they can’t make choices all on their own, and from the people guilt-tripping their future husbands into acting like pansies which women cannot bond with or respect enough to have children with.
Blow jobs are as unnatural as homosexuality, so good riddance to women learning how to give them.
JMH, like a “Traditional wife” type is even going to be interested in a guy who keeps a sexbot? Or who wants her, not for herself, but as some sort of replacement for them eeeeeevil modern womyns?
Like a modern man would actually want a “Traditional Wife” type, even if one were dropped on his doorstep, in her long skirts and bustle, or 50′s capris pants and white shirt?
A traditional wife type be interested in a “Traditional husband” type. And therein lies the problem.
Traditional husbands/wives were mocked, and scorned, back in the 60′s, as being Uptight, hardhats, frigid, repressed, Nazis, religious fanatics, “Betty Crockers”, White Male Oppressors, etc. Who wanted to be around such awful creatures? Nope, it was time we went in search of Ms. Hippie Flower Child, Mr Good-bar, Disco dancin’ King/Queen.
We clever moderns, male and female, got rid of them. Now, we want them back. Unfortunately, turning back the pages of time ain’t that easy.
Sadly—or, maybe not so sadly—nobody’s invented a time machine yet. Therefore, Modern women are what Modern males have to put with—and vice versa. I don’t think sexbots are going to solve that problem (though they might keep some women-hating men away from human females altogether, which would be all to the good.)
Betty, you’re conveniently forgetting a few things:
1. The “society” that mocks and scorns in that fashion IS pretty muc…women (and gays, and the few natural alpha males canny enough to exploit it to their own ends, there’s actually not that wide a gap between them.)
2. Not only has no one invented a time machine, no one has invented a cure for menopause and the decline in female beauty past their mid-20s. If you’ve been shooting down worthy men in those years thinking you can always snag someone later, you’ve got another think coming. And children past 30 are a crapshoot at best. Unless you’re good at being super best friends with a guy, don’t expect dating at that age to resemble anything other than a business relationship.
3. White beta men built, maintained, and died for the civilized world you live in, and thanks to the abortion epidemic, the affirmative action grinder, the college debt pit, and the entitlement scam, almost none are in any position of influence that can reverse this trend. If I were you, I would take care not to antagonize the salvageable ones you find for partaking of the few corrupted pleasures left in the world. No matter how virtuous, it’s damn sure not going to be women who rebuild something resembling a good society, no matter how networked.
Come to think on it, most women do nothing but complain and cause trouble. The ones that do really stand out. For every Betsy Ross, there’s a million others that can’t make a decent sandwich.
Hate to say it, but maybe the Chinese and Saudis have it right.
Has anyone ever been in a Game Stop store?
Sexbots are the future!
When I think of all the grief, guff and expense the half dozen women, two ex-wives and most bosses have caused me, this would have been a wonderful alternative. The cost of dates in High School alone would have bought me four a year to this day.
Of course I probably wouldn’t have learned how to speak English, drive, feed or dress myself, never would have gotten that second Masters…