>Take your robo-wives — please!
>
 |
| Build your own what? |
So the good fellows over on MGTOWforums.com were discussing, as they so often do, the impending arrival of the sexy robot ladies, and some of the practical problems that are holding them back (“Simply getting a robot to walk is an incredible task”), when the commenter calling himself Spidey suddenly directed his attention to me.
Well, not me personally, but all the “women (and manginas) reading this thread” and thinking less-than-charitable thoughts about the robotophile crowd. “If these guys are “perverts” and “creeps” then shouldn’t you be happy that they are releasing their urges on inanimate dolls rather then real human beings and hence not hurting anyone?” Spidey asked.
It’s a good question, and I’d like to offer my humble answer, which is: YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES. Please, take these robot ladies, and do whatever it is you want to do to them, and leave the real women of this world out of it.
Not that Spidey would be much interested in my answer. I doubt he would believe it, as he has clearly convinced himself that the women of the world (and, by extension, the manginas) are pissed at this high-tech challenge to their pussy monopoly. Speaking directly to the ladies, Spidey continued:
It’s because you KNOW that a sex doll can easily compete with you, because these dolls will always get better, they will always come out with newer, better looking sex dolls while you will always grow uglier, fatter and older. These dolls take away the only thing you can provide a man and the one thing you will use to control and manipulate him - sex. Now you can no longer with hold sex when you are wrong in an arguement just to get your way plus these sex dolls are STD free, unlike your used up vagina. Also I am pretty sure you realise that the men who buy these very expensive sex dolls must obviously have money, it must infuriate you that all that money is going towards an inanimate object that is better then you
Honestly, I think that most women will be rather relieved that guys who complain about “used up vaginas” will be voluntarily puling themselves out of the dating scene. But, never mind, because Spidey’s imaginary conversation with the ladies isn’t over yet.
Now I am also sure most women will say “but these things are fake and they will never provide ‘real love and companionship’”. Well guess what? men don’t want your love or companionship because your love is more fake then that provided by a virtual girl and your companionship is just as hollow. Is it “real love” when a woman f***s another man behind her husbands back, not because he has done anything wrong, only because she was bored or confused? how about when a woman f***s another man and pretends that the baby belongs to her hu
Let’s just skip past the rest of that paragraph; life is short, and it was just more of the same. Let’s try his next one:
As for companionship, men don’t want a creature that enjoys watching them suffer. We don’t want companoinship from a creature that demands everything from us but appreciates nothing. We don’t want to come home to a creature that yells at us for not earning enough money or working hard enough and if we do earn enough money we get yelled at for working too mu
Yeah, same deal. Let’s just move directly to his grand conclusion:
Yes ladies we would take a fake body and a fake personality over your aging body and narcissistic personality any day.
Trust me, Spidey, your personality isn’t going to win any awards any time soon either.
-
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on March 16, 2011, in hypergamy, manginas, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, oppressed men, pussy cartel, sexy robot ladies, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 157 Comments.
>I think I love evilwhitemales argument about feminism being a ploy by women to control the pussy monopoly. It is, possibly, the single most historically inaccurate thing I've ever read.Prostitution first came to prominance during the industrial revolution? Someone clearlty hasn't heard about the brothels of Pompeii. Prostitution has been going on throughout history. Especially in places where women are forbidden from earning money in other ways. If you can't work and your husband dies you're pretty much left selling your body. Also, it's hard to argue that women had the mighty power of the pussy when they didn't have the freedom to choose who to marry (Dad picked that), or if they wanted to have sex or not (within a marriage a man could rape his wife legally), and had no way to leave him (she couldn't have property in her name or money of her own). So, a woman could be forced to marry someone she didn't like, raped by him, and had no way to leave… but she totally had all the power. Right.
>Sophia, it wasn't until recently that there was much meaningful distinction between "women's sexuality" and "private property."That's rather my point. More precisely, women (and children) were quasi-property for most of "civilized" history. To say that it was primarily about controlling women's sexuality seems to me to be putting the cart ahead of the horse. Sexuality was a mere incidence of ownership. I do think that we have an ugly and loud minority of people today (active anti-choicers) who are very motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality, I just don't believe they historically provided the critical mass to get what they want. Others, with different motivations, provided that. I'm not a Marxist, but… capital is a rapacious bastard. Or bitch.
>To expand, the othering of women and the othering of labor is a difference of degree, not kind.
>@950-copycatIgnoring the Bates-esque nature of the question, I would probably be paid about as much as I was before*, assuming I wasn't deported first to limbo for not having any identification. I'm not sure how incompetent I would be seen as considering my pay would be largely the same, even though women take more short-term sick leave**. Because I was raised to be industrious and take pride in my work - small things like designing and improving the infrastructure you could not live without - I doubt I would take it.I would also have to get my clothes tailored, and my attitude and behavior would be largely unchanged. As shocking as this may be, I would not become more susceptible to vapid magazines or fashion shows because my body changed, nor would I want to violate the first amendment by banning or censoring them.
>As for my "misogynistic" political views, I'd recommend you read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers. I would not take some bizarre "wrong body" dilemma as an excuse to blame any inadequacy on my former sex. Rather, I would focus on making things better.* nsf.gov/statistics/issuebrf/sib99352.htm (small difference in earnings, explainable by rounding errors or willingness to relocate, etc.)** sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080204212846.htm
>So, now we have 95-string and e4-string. I'll try to remember that.
>I view them as String and Much Better String.
>As for my "misogynistic" political views, I'd recommend you read The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff SommersRead it. It's full of shit. The fact that a woman said it doesn't make it any truer.
>@tri - care to elaborate? Saying "it's full of shit" without a rational explanation only injects hormones and emotion into a discussion, and does nothing to educate. Try again.
>Sophia X"Sexuality was a mere incidence of ownership. I do think that we have an ugly and loud minority of people today (active anti-choicers) who are very motivated by a desire to control women's sexuality"Oh yes that's it! They're not doing what they do because they consider it murder they're just 'anti-choice' because it's all a big plot to control women's sexuality.Who do you sound like now?Oh yes! That evil white guy thingy that say's feminists are out to control MEN'S sexuality.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier
>EWMEThe thing is, most of the anti-choicer's proposals are failures when it comes to reducing abortions. But they do succeed in making sex more dangerous and expensive for women. By their fruits we shall judge them…
>"The thing is, most of the anti-choicer's proposals are failures when it comes to reducing abortions."That's only because pro-deathers do everything possible to allow easy access to abortion."But they do succeed in making sex more dangerous and expensive for women." It's also true that allowing indolent ghetto folks to breed makes for a more dangerous and expensive world for everyone but I don't see feminists pushing eugenics much these days.
>indolent ghetto folksWUT? Dude, you have bigotry coming out of your pores.
>My reaction to the "Men's Rights Movement" always boils down to "I'm not seeing a down side."So a bunch of men who view women as subhuman cumdumpsters want to play with robot sex dolls so they never ever have to risk getting girl cooties on them. Ok, I'm not seeing a down side. Hell, I wish I knew anything at all about robotics, so I could help develop 'bots for these dudes. Anything to keep em safely and quietly in their basements, and out of the pubs, parks, and parties that I enjoy.
>This is my first post on this site. Since this article is about, "sexbots" for men I'd like to comment on all of the comments people have made.The recurring sentiment is men who would use, "sexbots" are, "losers." They just want a, "sex slave." Can't, "function" in society or on equal footing. "Objectify" women. Can't, "get any" or can't handle a, "strong/independent" woman. They are basically losers; the repugnant dregs of society.So the question I have is, why is women using vibrators, (mini-robots) considered something wonderful? Further, women will mock men for their use of vibrators. "No man can compete with a vibrator." Women will go on about curling up with a good book and a vibrator, (her robot replacement) and then shame all men because hes not as good as her…"robot."It seems a bit hypocritical to mock an article about sexbots and call men who would use them losers, perverts, degenerates and so on. All the while bragging about a brand of vibrator while still calling men losers for being unable to compete with a womans minature sexbot.
>I want to know if these fembots would have machine gun boobies like the ones on Austin Powers. If they did, then God help us all, they will take over the world.