The memes make themselves
You must log in or # to comment.
i’m not a woman but something tells me that they wouldn’t want to be with a person who even remotely considers the idea of owning a robotic sex-slave.
Am a woman - can confirm. It’s such a self own it’s laughable. They didn’t want a partner in the true sense to begin with.
Do you own sex toys?
Do you talk about your worries and fears to the fleshlight beside your bed? Do you try and plan a future with the magazine you’ve made sticky?
All to say I don’t care what gets your jollies off (legally of course) but there’s a huge difference between self pleasure and building a life with another human being.
Maybe you’ll experience it some day.
You don’t know what people with do with their bots. You’re just looking for somebody to hate.
You’re the one who asked me if I had sex toys. Seems like you’re framing it just right.
You’re just looking for somebody to hate.
You’re supposed to look away from the mirror when you’re talking to someone.
Fam you’re just digging up your own L
It is more like that those people can’t get a real women because a woman is allowed to have a standard nowadays so they try to save face with “I didn’t wanted a real women to begin with. Bots are better anyway. I’m not lonely, you are lonely”.
What a stupid question. Do you think people use sex toys as a replacement for emotional intimacy and shared life experiences or is this a self-tell that you think relationships are nothing more than sex?
Are you going to force people who own bots to use them for emotional intimacy and shared life experiences, or does your crystal ball tell you this will happen?
I mean that seems hugely implied by the pictures in the above post no?
Edit: oh you said forced. No? But I don’t see how that’s relevant. Why would you ask “Do you have sex toys?” In response to that comment?
I think the point was “I don’t assume you are in love with your dildo, and so you shouldn’t assume consumers of sex robots are, or desire to be, in love with their sex robots.”
The picture in OP isn’t really a counterargument, as it’s arguably an appeal to one specific slice of the nascent sex-robot customer base.
I have to admit, while sex-robot is not a thing on my want list, if it were I’d tend to see it as a super fancy sex toy, not as a companion. (Though again I recognize that for some it probably would be.)
… Can it do domestic labor or just sex? I am a woman and frankly I’d be interested in a robot wife… I’ve got my husband for sex but we’re tired of cooking dinner and cleaning the house. We’d both like a wife.
Nab a crate loading robot from an Amazon warehouse, it can lift more and will have much less pricey maintenance.
and your husband won’t be tempted to fuck it
And that’s where you’d be wrong!
No shit! If it can clean catboxes and fold the laundry I’m so down.
There are robot cat boxes tbf
Those can be lethal for your cats.
that’s called polyamory, and is especially relevant in this economy
Monogamy? In this economy?
I would love even a dumbed down wonderbot from that movie robots. Even something just to load the dishwasher would be amazing.
But we have to prioritize here, if it can’t fuck there’s no point, throw it in the trash.
I feel like I need this /s although I wish it was obvious.
Sign me up for a house-bot. I’m so tired by the time I get home from work that I’d love a robot to do all the chores for me.
I’ve seen this in Detroit: Become Human.
Most of those men were never that desirable on a personality level anyway.
They think of women in transactional terms, where they only do what’s necessary to get laid.
I think, especially the incel types almost live in an RPG. Women are just NPCs, you do some quests for them, fetch her father’s sword from the orc cave, hit the right speech options and if you gathered enough reputation, you get the ethereal pussy of power that gives +5 on mana.
Switching directly to robots does make sense in that world.
the thing i just cannot wrap my head around with these people is what the hell they’re after, they claim they don’t like women and yet they’re clearly thirsting after them.
best i can guess is that they’re just profoundly mentally unhealthy and unable to realize that if they want a partner they should just… be desirable, which easy to get started with by learning how to cook and being nice to people.
They see women as accessories, like a tie or jacket, and fundamentally less valuable than themselves.
I think this is partly driven by a mixture of misogyny and low self-esteem. A woman on equal footing might threaten their very fragile self worth.
So being a normal person would mean partial submission to a woman (because that’s just part of being in a relationship, you’re not always on top), but at the same time they feel the societal need for a woman, because only having sex makes them true men.
And it’s also the typical self-victimization of fascist Ideologies. Nazis are victims of the Jews, current fascists are victims of immigrants or Muslims, incels are victims of Chad Thundercock.
I think this is partly driven by a mixture of misogyny and low self-esteem
It’s also driven by isolation. There’s a reason there are so many incels out in the sticks. These guys have never been popular, so they locked themselves away, in a place where you already have to work to meet people. They basically never socially mature, and get all their human interaction on 4chan
I mean, they would most likely also make a male version.
And then we can all join in on the fun with both. Might even be able to do the more advanced Kama Sutra stances that are normally reserved for orgies.
You can bet it will be someones kink.
This makes me think of those whole torso dildos.
If anyone reads this and owns one, please explain.
You’re just kink-shaming sex toys now.
I think I’m poking fun of torso dildos. I usually have a tenga in my drawer.
Robot wives are pretty much exactly what the whole torso dildo is. Only, someone who has the whole torso dildo isn’t taking it out to dinner and dancing and showing it off like it’s trophy.
That’s beyond comprehension. No sane person is taking their dildo out for dinner or to a friends house to watch a movie. They’d have to be android quality.
Or at least USB C.
They have dolls for that. And people have been. There’s documentaries and videos all about it already.
I should watch one of those. I know they exist but I don’t see those people being in a good space mentally. I’m being a bit loose with the definition of sane, ie no sane person would do that. There’s at least one feature film covering this topic too.
Whole torso dildo? Like the super long ones?
No no it’s like a human body without any limbs.
I guess now that I think about it the limbs would be flaily and weird. I don’t think there is a head either, just the torso.
If you’re not familiar with this there are dildo conventions that showcase all the latest and greatest.
I really don’t understand the dot connection from sexbots existing to women becoming secound class citizens or whatever they think will happen. It’s as if they think women only exist for sex and marriage and won’t have a purpose without it. And that’s not even to go into their assumption that every single person will decide that having a human connection is pointless and can be replaced by a non sentient(god I hope so) sexbot.
I feel like it would free a lot of women to focus on their careers and stuff as opposed to being conditioned to find a husband.
I really don’t understand the dot connection from sexbots existing to women becoming secound class citizens
It’s the same thinking that leads to “AI will replace programmers/artists/writers” but with extra misogyny. People in power don’t actually believe this garbage, it’s all a marketing gimmick to appeal to losers and incels. Nevertheless, this kind of rhetoric does real societal harm. Same as with musks hyperloop – hype up a fake idea and grab the cash.
The scary thing is I think some of them (like Muskrat) do believe it… even though they have no idea how AI even works or how to build a robot like in the pic. They just come up with the idea and then hand off all the actual planning to others, and then strut around like roosters in a barnyard feeling oh-so-smart.
And these rich idiots want this stuff in order to keep all the money for themselves instead of paying an actual human for art/programming/writing (in the case of AI) or so they don’t have to deal with a real human being with their own needs and wants (in the case of a robot ‘wife’). They just don’t want other ‘inferior’ people around them, period.
Which just goes to show what they think of marriage, I suppose.
(Assuming such technology could be viable and not, you know, horrifying like it sounds it would be…)
[Headlines ten years after the invention of the robot “wife”]
WHY ARE GENERATION ALPHA WOMEN KILLING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE?!
and
GEN ALPHA WOMEN SAY THEY ARE HAPPILY SINGLE: WHAT IS WRONG WITH THEM??!
and
DEATHS FROM LONELINESS AMONG GEN ALPHA MEN ARE WAY UP: WHAT’S GOING ON?!
So you’re suggesting that people - especially those in power - seem to think that women are equals who have individual identities and worth?
I’m not a woman, so I’m probably not qualified to comment; and I’m not intending to attack you personally, only address what you say here; but it does seem like in many cases women get a bum rap.
What is a dot connection?
Is this how we remove these “alphas” from the gene pool? Hmmm… carry on.
And nothing of value was lost.
Awesome. As a woman, I cannot wait for the day men will be so occupied with a robot waifu, that we can finally walk safely at night.
Well most men don’t assault women. It’s always a small percentile. And since assault is often about power, not sex, I doubt that would solve anything.
It has always been dominance seeking behaviour. Testosterone’s prime choice. Nothing new there.
You only have one life. It only takes one asshole to maim you for the rest of your life. Can’t afford to lose your life.
As a dude, it pains me that this is the current state of affairs. I wish things were better for both men and women (and all others too).
I have an even better proposition: have a gang of robot waifus/husbandos to kick the asses of any “men” who misbehave.
Don’t say “men” as if they aren’t human. They are men as much as the ones who aren’t assholes.
didn’t mean to dehumanize them, i meant that they aren’t men in the sense of masculinity. theres not much thats less masculine than bothering people who don’t want to be bothered.
Anything a man does, could be dubbed as masculine. Be it helping someone, or dominating someone.
Boys and men have the habit to fight moreso than girls and women. More violently too. Yet when a man assaults someone, it’s somehow not masculine?
Assault is not an masculine trait, it’s an action done by disgusting people regardless of gender. I wasn’t assaulted often, but I was hit by women more often than men(I know that I am in the minority, but it demonstrates that violence is not inherently something based in gender).
I personally think that masculinity (or femininity) is diminished by such actions. It makes people look undisciplined and lacking morals, empathy and respect.
I also think it’s important to start defining masculinity and femininity by positive traits, so young people see it and aspire to embody those traits. We need a counter-weight to the Tate’s and Rogan’s in this world.
The idea that Musk would have a black robot girlfriend is the most unbelievable part of this.
That was probably just a mistake from the racist image generator secretly adding the word black to the prompt
One of the best happy little accidents llm have brought upon us.
I wouldn’t put it past him to forcibly impregnate some diamond mine staff
*Emerald mine
I stand corrected
Racism and objectification go hand in hand though, plenty of real world evidence of that, from Jefferson to Strom Thurmond.
deleted by creator
Should of
As a non native English speaker, that is the grammar mistake that most baffles me in natives. Like, how does anybody think that “of” is the right word there, how does it make sense in their heads.
True 🦴🍎☕️ material, if it weren’t that absurdly common.
I think the mistake might come from a lack of reading. The contraction “should’ve” is often used in speech, which might be mistakenly written as “should of” if you don’t read a lot and see it written properly all the time. We’ve mostly lost the voiced quality of “v” at the ends of words like that, so it’s basically pronounced “should-uf” in American English.
I understand to some extent, thanks!
No excuses. People who type should of/could of have brain dysfunction.
I mean, it’s rather obvious it’s just written down as it’s spoken - like “bone apple tea”. But while it’s relatable that someone who doesn’t know any French cannot write “bon appétit”, I don’t get how a native speaker could write “should of” and thinking yeah that makes complete sense.
It’s also not an auto-correct problem like “there, they’re, their” may have originated (I hope it did).
i just learned yesterday that apparently america teaches kids to read not by, you know, having them read things, but by memorizing made-up rules to… guess at how words are pronounced and what they mean…
this uh, explains a lot about why america is why it is, i feel.
When spoken should’ve can sound a lot like should of or shoulda depending on the dialect. Most native speakers don’t really think about gammer rules when writing informally, they just write how they speak.
shoulda makes vastly more sense, and is precisely the kind of thing that tends to become slang and eventually just the standard spelling, like “dunno” or “gotcha”.
“should of” just feels like people know it should be two words, but don’t know how it’s spelled, and instead of just spelling it phonetically they make something half-phonetic up.
I say shoulda, gonna, etc. I’m never going to mix up should’ve with should of. It doesn’t make ANY fucking sense typed out. I discount everything else a person has said if they type either.
It’s like when they mess up they’re, their and there. It doesn’t make any sense until you read it out loud
Should of is so much worse though. There/they’re/their I can excuse as being dyslexic or English as a second language. But should of/could of speaks to a deep problem. The person who types it does not consider what they say.
Why? What’s the difference? In both cases a word is replaced by a similarly sounding word. Both mistakes are the same.
I think it comes from people shortening it to should’ve which then got warped into should of
Automatically screams “uneducated” to me. Such an easy thing to not get wrong.
I feel like someone, somewhere, ate the onion.
At this point, I think the universe has eaten the onion.
deleted by creator
I mean, yeah…
lol this would be amazing news for straight women. it should be super cheap and accessible too. imagine the number of weirdos who will preliminate themselves from dating before you even know them. what a wonderful gift to the world. it’s great for straight men too, if the women won’t have to spelunk through so much garbage to find a normal dude.
It’s subjective who’s a normal dude and whether that intersects with weirdos who preliminate (interesting word) themselves from dating before you even know them.
I’m definitely in the latter group except for a few very rare events (all of which did not end very well, though for some of them others say I dodged a bullet, and for some of them I’ve reevaluated the events and myself think I dodged a bullet, though the person is good, but they too have problems unfixed yet which would make it a dumpster fire, and some of them ended such a nightmare that I suspect I should be glad we weren’t deeper into things … tldr I’m one of those weirdos)
But this really would be amazing news for everyone if we assume a good enough physical imitation is possible. Let them. Plastic grass, fabric flowers, rubber “stone” or “brick” walls, electric fireplaces, search engines instead of actually judging for yourself whom you’d want to ask and what you’d want to read, social media instead of a forum (the Roman one, though early 00s ones were good) or a homepage, fashion degenerating into all girls at night looking the same (outdoors), the “genial” and “non-mainstream” authors’ names being known to every high schooler and all the same unlike Stanislaw Lem and Isaac Asimov and Chesterton and Simak and even Tolkien and Lewis, instead of ancap (like it or not, it’s a very firm and characteristic ideology, that has influenced cyberpunk in both ways) optimism\pessimism only cryptoscams and Gab and alt-rights around, instead of new computer-powered amazing art - some plagiarism machines, instead of transhumanism - some very persuasive bots, it makes sense that at some point this should come to moving dolls instead of romantic partners, and if people don’t choke on the rest in this list, they won’t choke on that too.
We do have Harlowe’s monkey studies that do indicate that even imitation is better than nothing.
My guess is that this plays along oxytocin receptors, which is also why things like weighted blankets do kind of work, social media does kinda work, etc. People can also take inhalable oxytocin.
There is no replacement for unconditional love (which means love that respects boundaries unconditionally as extensions of a person and their autonomy) and community though. But that doesn’t mean women should endanger themselves so dangerous men who enjoy being controlling (like Musk) can have oxytocin. Because then that means women don’t get unconditional love and respect for their boundaries and safety.
I am agreeable to these robots but I also have some reservations as a sex worker. First, there is a substantial male population who cannot hire sex workers because they have been blacklisted for various reasons. These men could benefit from a doll for sure. Second, similar to AI deepfake concerns - some of these men are basing dolls off real people, and some are pedophiles- what stops them from ordering a doll that looks just like the little girl next door? And what stops them from filming material harming and torturing these dolls and selling it online? Including material that could involve animals, feces, or other taboo/illegal/defamatory acts? That’s likely currently legal depending on the doll’s appearance (how young it appears) and local laws. Yes, it’s just a doll, so that’s better than the huge curremt online presence of monkey torture and real human torture. But don’t you think that’s also bad in some way too? On one hand, it’s comparatively a good outlet. On the other hand, holy fuck
Yeah, holy fuck, the morality waters get very murky very quickly when the topic of sex robots come up especially when it concerns taboo and illegal fetishism.
Content warning: moral discussions of sex-bots for very taboo fetishes below.
I think it mostly comes down to people’s personal tolerance of “ick” i.e. how much person A judges a fetish that person B has that person A is not into.
Some people are, understandably, completely turned off or even horrified at taboo kinks like age-play, roleplay-incest, CNC, scat, blood, etc.
Heck I’ve even seen some articles that argue that “mainstream” BDSM is the fetishization of women’s suffering and therefore inherently misogynistic. But I don’t think that’s a common viewpoint and not one I hold either.
Personally, I don’t care what sex thing people are into that doesn’t involve me so long as it’s not causing harm and it’s between consenting adults.
So springboarding off your comment about pedophilia and beastiality, which are both illegal for extremely good reasons: would sex-dolls or sex-robots for both/either be harm-reduction or harm-enabling?
On the argument for harm reduction; it’s an outlet for those fetishes that has no victim. Therefore it could prevent those who have that fetish from victimising children and animals because it’s much less risky and not illegal to use a sex-doll/robot for those purposes in private solitude. And who should care what weird things people get up to in private so long as it does no harm to others.
On the argument for harm enabling; it could push illegal fetishes that are quite rightly shunned by society towards normalisation. Shame is a powerful emotional tool used in animal social groups to discourage behaviour of individuals that are harmful to the group.
In a similar way if someone says something weird in person in front of a group of people they want to be accepted in they get ridiculed, feel shame and embarrassment for saying something weird, and don’t say it again in that group.
Now with social media, those people who have the same weird opinion (just to be clear everyone has at least a few weird opinions, no exceptions there) can find eachother and echo-chamber themselves, calcify their opinions into more extreme forms, and occasionally act them out in the physical world causing harm to others.
What happens when the technology of social media collides with the technology of sex bots? Like with the hypotheticals you gave of people “stealing” identities of celebrities to make their own sex bots or styling them after pictures of kids they found online.
What happens when they start sharing tips for making animal sex-bots with more realistic fur, exploring these problematic fetishes with others which normalises the behaviour in the group, until finally one of the group decides that only the “real-thing” is good enough for them now then goes out into the world and does harm?
I don’t know which side I fall on. And I don’t think I will ever know until I can see some conclusive evidence one way or another.
That’s as far as I will entertain these kinds of discussions because my “ick” point is when these trains of thought lead to asking the same question about simulated snuff.
Because that opens a whole other horrifying can of worms of what about making bots for simulated rape, murder, and necrophilia for those with psychopathic tendancies?
And for me it boils down to is the question “do we make objects to sell and commodify humanity’s capacity for evil as recreation?”.
As you are a sex worker, I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts on the ramblings above and please correct me if I’ve made any assumptions or leaps in logic.
Well, on the matter of dolls looking “just like” whoever, I think that should be legal with no reservations. The point we consider those acts you’ve described heinous and disgusting and so on is because real people\animals suffer. The rest is simply not our business. So if there’s no real suffering involved, this is not even up to discussion.
Releasing filmed material with dolls is another issue, I think this should be considered harassment, maybe even on the “rape threat” level. But again - scaled by the real rights being violated, not by what we want and don’t want others to do, because that’s not our business.
I’m not sure I agree about it being a good outlet, I think you are right about not being sure. That outlet logic doesn’t quite work the same with every person. Again, a person on the spectrum (like me) might use that possibility to play, and for them it will really be an outlet. A usual person with weird fetishes might do that too, or want the real thing after playing with toys enough, as with gateway drugs. A psychopath will likely have no use for toys since they only want real power over living beings.
As we all see with the Web and social media, lots of genocidal rhetoric has been normalized in the last decade that wasn’t before that. Don’t want to mention Azeris, but 15 years ago they (in the Russian-speaking Web) wouldn’t go to common places, because those places would expel savages ; now the common places are just as degenerate and hateful. I wouldn’t want the same thing to happen with torture and rape fantasies.
So - I think it’s a bad thing. In private they may do with dolls as they want. In public and in the Web - depending on how realistic it is.
There’s also a substantial male population for whom a woman being subservient is a turnoff, though, with knowing it’s a transaction being sufficient. For such people a doll could help with some purely physical stupid things, but those are the least of lonely people’s problems, so not very useful.
EDIT: Oh, another person has already said all the same things.
I’m right there with you. I’m mildly on the spectrum, though functional enough that no one would assume it unless they really got to know me, and while I am capable of having a moderate amount of success in the initial stages of dating, compatibility and styles of communication always end up being the primary issue, and that’s not necessarily a failing on either party. The fact remains though that there does not seem to be many people out there that I am compatible with.
I am fortunate in that I am generally very content being alone and pursuing things that are of interest to me for very long periods of time (the only thing I really noticed during Covid lock downs was that my commute to work was faster, while my much more social partner at the time suffered a lot mental health wise). Despite that I am, unfortunately, still human and desire a certain amount of intimacy and connection with another person. I’m not sure if it will ever happen, but if you have seen the new Blade Runner movie, I could absolutely see myself with a “companion” like the holographic one the main character has in his apartment.
Well, my notable spectrum-related personal trait is that I want to know the truth about things, so falling in love with pictures just won’t work, I won’t be able to expel from my mind the fact that it’s not real in any regard.
Unless a machine conscience of human kind becomes real.
Haven’t seen the new one yet.
That’s completely understandable.
I’m not sure if you are speaking generally, or to what I said specifically, but it may be worth adding a little bit more context for what I said originally. It is highly unlikely I would fall in love with an AI in the scenario I described above. It would more be about scratching an itch for certain kinds of interactions that I may not otherwise be able to have. I’m not sure it’s a perfect analogy, but it might be similar to the way I care about a character in a book or game, or maybe how I feel about a pet.
I think if we got to the point where an AI had human levels of general intelligence and emotion this conversation would be somewhat moot. The world would be so drastically different I don’t even know what kinds of assumptions to make about it to have a productive conversion about it.
I’m looking forward to the anguished screeching when they find out that male sexbots will be a thing too.
Would be an interesting timeline if your hookup line is: “Hey, our sexbots should totally smash.”
We’re just a few pandemics away from that.
what a limited imagining of a robotic sex partner. not one of them is a shrieking metallic skull on the thorax+abdomen of a 700 lb scorpion with a tail that injects an adrenaline and DMT mix.
which is what we all want to come home to, am I right fellas?
I refuse to believe this is a real post.
That’s good, cause it’s very clearly not a real post. Just someone who made some AI images for lulz.
“Robot files for first robot-human divorce from musk”
I love the logic here: if you won’t fuck us, we’ll fuck machines.
that’ll show 'em. goddamn.
I mean, for the crowd of people we’re referencing here, that’s probably easier than them learning how to not be complete shitbag assholes to women.
not wrong… not wrong at all.
Machines: actually…
Detroit: Become Human
