The current political climate around courtship and interactions between the sexes is more powerful than the market forces that are replacing jobs, because escalating costs aren’t transparent and neither is the punishment for not paying them. If a business owner wants to adhere to employment laws, he reads them, the costs of courtship are codified nowhere.
The average single man paying attention to contemporary social fashions will struggle to understand the new rules of meeting, courting, or having sex with women. Something as banal as trying to converse with a woman wearing headphones is now often considered harassment. A man’s chances of mating success increase when he approaches many women, but so too do his chances of a gaining reputation as sexist, exploitative, or immoral. To take a fraught example, how does a man know that a woman is genuinely consenting to sex? A lack of ability to pick up on cues can incur catastrophic costs.
Men high in conscientiousness, who are sensitive to social disapproval but who nonetheless have difficulty reading subtle social cues, could make good husbands for women. These men are unlikely to want to take the risk of approaching women. As substitutes like sex robots and virtual companions become better and cheaper, they will monopolize the attention of such men.
It is not surprising that some feminists want to campaign against the threat of sexbots replacing women. Sociological research tells us that in a surplus of women, which sexbots would simulate, fewer men are interested, and the standards of the women fall accordingly. They have more sex with more men trying to compete. Thus the feminist desire to tell men how they ought to be under pain of not having their desires fulfilled founders on the prospect of being routed around. Sex is now fraught with hazards for men because of ideology, so men build alternatives and bargaining power dissipates.
https://jacobitemag.com/2018/04/24/...wk92uJln97Zik7eFRJOuZt_FZqW-TZ-R7gM_mtfw2nhAk
What the literal **** dude...
Robots are never going to replace women. Just no.
It's insulting to women to even imply they would ever have to compete.
For one it implies that men are the most important, and that women should seek them.
Just ****ing no dude.
The article was written by a woman.
What the literal **** dude...
Robots are never going to replace women. Just no.
It's insulting to women to even imply they would ever have to compete.
For one it implies that men are the most important, and that women should seek them.
Just ****ing no dude.
What kind of candy-assed weakling would ever even consider a sex bot?
Sounds like an incel RW sort of thing.
What kind of candy-assed weakling would ever even consider a sex bot?
Sounds like an incel RW sort of thing.
In many cases, probably. But I could also see someone who likes being single and doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of being in a relationship and doesn’t want to worry about STDs. Not the route I would go, but I could imagine some decent people opting for it.
The article was written by a woman.
For sex? Never? This strikes me as rather short sighted. Sex bots are only going to get better, warmer, more AI, etc...
Why is that insulting? Its a self evident reality that an alternative would be competing.
How does it in any way imply that?
How do you feel about notions to the contrary, that men should pursue women?
What kind of candy-assed weakling would ever even consider a sex bot?
Sounds like an incel RW sort of thing.
crazy is not exclusive to gender. It's dumb to think robots will ever compete with a real woman.
In many cases, probably. But I could also see someone who likes being single and doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of being in a relationship and doesn’t want to worry about STDs. Not the route I would go, but I could imagine some decent people opting for it.
The more lifelike and realistic they become, it's certainly possible. The article makes a much more complex argument than that of the OP.
What the literal **** dude...
Robots are never going to replace women. Just no.
It's insulting to women to even imply they would ever have to compete.
For one it implies that men are the most important, and that women should seek them.
Just ****ing no dude.
https://jacobitemag.com/2018/04/24/...wk92uJln97Zik7eFRJOuZt_FZqW-TZ-R7gM_mtfw2nhAkAcross cultures, men desire more sexual partners, need to know someone for less time before they want to have sex with them, and have lower standards for a sexual liaison than women. Looking at gay men is instructive here. Their sexual interactions are not limited by women’s sexual choosiness and they, on average, have many more sexual partners than straight men or lesbians.
It isn’t hard to see the reason for this. Men don’t get pregnant and don’t lactate, and they have smaller, easier-to-produce sex cells than women. For a man, the cost of producing offspring is cheap. Getting one’s genes into the next generation is the engine of evolution. The low opportunity costs make men motivated to take every opportunity, even if it comes in the form of a robot.
What kind of candy-assed weakling would ever even consider a sex bot?
Sounds like an incel RW sort of thing.
Then women are just going to have to feel insulted. :shrug:
Clearly you didn't read the article, as it discusses how in the current ideological clime it is more costly both socially and financially for men to engage in dating rituals.
Yet men are by biological design more driven to sexual urges then women. One point made in the article was this:
https://jacobitemag.com/2018/04/24/...wk92uJln97Zik7eFRJOuZt_FZqW-TZ-R7gM_mtfw2nhAk
This doesn't imply "men are more important," it points out the biological differences and the greater sex drive men have.
As an aside, why would you imply that women are "more important" and thus should not wish to "seek" men? Why shouldn't women compete for the "best" men as men compete for the "best" women?
That is a simple biological imperative designed to insure the survival of the fittest. :coffeepap:
What the literal **** dude.
Not necessarily. Sure, I'm sure that such people would but I doubt that's all that it would be. There are men out there that are gross and no woman would ever date even though those men have hearts of gold. I can see such men taking advantage of such devices.
Let me ask you a question...do you consider women that use vibrators as "candy-assed weaklings"? There is literally a far larger market for dildos and similar sexual objects to be used by women than there are for men. I'd post a few links to such devices but I can't look them up atm due to my kids being up and around.
Let me put it this way, sex with those robots is masturbation. Every guy on the planet masturbates. Even the ****ing pope.
No hetero male will choose masturbation over a real woman. Those robots will be the consolation at the end of the night after getting shot down.
It's evolution dude. It's compulsive. Women will never have to compete with any fake object for male attention.
Not necessarily. Sure, I'm sure that such people would but I doubt that's all that it would be. There are men out there that are gross and no woman would ever date even though those men have hearts of gold. I can see such men taking advantage of such devices.
Let me ask you a question...do you consider women that use vibrators as "candy-assed weaklings"? There is literally a far larger market for dildos and similar sexual objects to be used by women than there are for men. I'd post a few links to such devices but I can't look them up atm due to my kids being up and around.
I expect for men the easier and cheaper option is porn, a tissue and their hand. No need for a $40 mechanical aid
No, I don't consider them weaklings. Comparing a sexbot and a vibrator doesn't seem reasonable to me.
:shrug:
Your distaste or contempt for it really is neither here nor there. When the sexual desires of (at least some) men can be fulfilled by a very realistic robot, that's way beyond masturbation. That's probably close enough to real thing, without many of the attenuating hassles.
You can call guys who opt for that losers or whatnot, but if they get what they want, it really doesn't matter.
It's not even like this only goes one way. Women joke about not needing men when they have the shower head or a vibrator all the time. There's a joke about it "Wonder Woman." If there are ultra-realistic male sex robots, then women may opt for those, too.
Why? They're both mechanical objects designed to give pleasure. The only difference is their appearances.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?