First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Sexbots
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
I don't see why anyone would want a sexbot, but meh...if they're lives are that sad, I feel for them.

But at the end of the day, it's still a robot. We don't want AI to go too far or we will end up killing ourselves
8010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Online
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

^

Well, these need a bit more of an explanation, I'd explain it like always, but I'd like to think what middle leftists think of Sexbots.

@LukeDollo, you're probably used to PC and Social Justice agenda filtering generalizations to make sure no one is offended except hetero white men or just hetero men. You'll have to avoid my posts and topics since explaining things in a way to take everyone's feelings into account would remove the purpose of talking at all or it would muddle the point in the first place or make it unclear if I treated everyone as a gray blob. For anyone else reading, be careful as you might get assassinated by your own emotions if you're not used to being scrutinized or objectively examined.

@Magical-Soul


I don't care if you have sex with a machine, a chair, or anything else, just be a decent human being.
besides, our planet is pretty overpopulated. anything that prevents future children may be a cold necessity in the future. Personally, I wouldn't.

24034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / Frisco, TX
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
LOL. Where can I sign up for the Persocom beta program? When is the kickstarter?!
17394 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Michigan
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15
Notice me senpai...

2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
@Eclair, there's tons of reasons. Lots of men can't get sex or a decent quality partner for a number of reasons. Some guys are just cursed(for example, being black in Japan or white in India), women prefer tall and muscular guys. Any guy can work out, but he's weeded out of selection if he's short and dark skinned.

Dark skin tall guys are preferred over all else. But lighter skinned shorties are preferred for some reason. People have a predisposition to have a priority list. Asian > Hispanic > Mexican > White > Black > Iranian/Middle Eastern in North America. Racism is very real when it comes to partner selection. Some guys are just biologically and systematically disadvantaged. If you're black and not 6'0, you're way less likely to be successful. If you're in a place that just doesn't go for your skin type, you're pretty much just fucked.

This is just natural selection, some people get shafted. To make up for this heigh disadvantage, guys have to amass status or wealth. And a lot of it. So it just makes more sense for some men to be excited to skip the aspect of courtship since they're disadvantaged. Hypergamy dictates that women want the same man other women want, so undesirable men are in abundance these days simply because they aren't tall, muscular or wealthy or have status. So Sexbots are a good choice for her short guy who has to compete with guys who are taller than him, which is a hard limit for most women everywhere.

Seeing as you're a woman, chances are you don't court and you don't have a sexual dry spell like our short men. Like I said, female interest in Sexbots pale in comparison to male interest so there's another reason why you wouldn't understand how a man thinks.

@LukeDollo,

Oh my, I didn't know I was so stupid. I'm sorry. This is hostility I'm used too from Feminists and White Knights, it's very odd coming across such a thing in a left middle forum such as this one.
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 11/16/15
I don't see the need for them.
8010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Online
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:

@LukeDollo,

Oh my, I didn't know I was so stupid. I'm sorry. This is hostility I'm used too from Feminists and White Knights, it's very odd coming across such a thing in a left middle forum such as this one.




you also have to concider the fact that there should be the freedom of choice in regards to human interaction.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

lukedollo wrote:


Magical-Soul wrote:

@LukeDollo,

Oh my, I didn't know I was so stupid. I'm sorry. This is hostility I'm used too from Feminists and White Knights, it's very odd coming across such a thing in a left middle forum such as this one.




you also have to concider the fact that there should be the freedom of choice in regards to human interaction.


EDIT: that's a rant, and also, I don't think disrespected human choice and rights.

It's contradictory to expect freedom in a contract you signed to give to someone else a privilege.

I'm all for choice and rights, I'm definitely center left and is a republican. Complete sovereignty and freedom within a contract made to restrict such a thing is silly, especially since it's entire purpose is commitment and sacrifice.

I'm not religious at all, I don't even respect off the wall religion, and is purely atheist from that angle. But retaining all rights and privileges within a contract designed to sign them over to someone else is a gross violation of said contract.

There are buzzwords that just sound good to the average person like "equality" or "freedom", "choice" even. But marriage wasn't designed to give you any of those things, it's actually designed to take them away from you and separate your powers into your partner to make you "closer". I never planned to get married, but it's really interesting to see young women talk about something they don't understand or have no respect for.

Simply saying "freedom" and "choice" doesn't lend itself to a great argument, especially since marriage pays close attention to such to make sure there are sacrifices by both parties, that is what it is about. It's not about "empowering" you or giving you choice, but about cutting yourself in half and letting your partner hold the other piece.

Despite being center left, the right has a much better understanding of commitment and marriage. While the left is wrapped up in what they "feel" or perceive as righteous.

That's why anything to the contrary of what I'm saying, I easily shoot down, since it doesn't make any sense and no one here seems to grasp the fact that marriage is from the right and not the left, choice and freedom have no place in a contract designed to put obligations on you both.
8010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Online
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15
actually, marriage is not from the right or the left, it was just made for property based reasons in a time before the right and left really existed.
Also, you have the right to choose who, when and why you decide to talk to any person at all. If you so choose to not, that is your choice, and you have the right to do so, but you will have to deal with the consequences.
equality, freedom, and choice are not buzzwords.
people have misused, and abused them; however that should not degrade what they actually mean and represent.

before i really delve into any sort of discussion with this, and this is by no means a attack, but what did you mean by this?

I don't think disrespected human choice and rights.


if everything else stated is in relation to that i would need that information to understand.
I think we agree, but we had ideals lost in translation.

also, i never brought up marriage. I have no idea where that came from.
24942 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

Magical-Soul wrote:
Sexbots objectively have no downsides.


True.

Especially if they can cook.

Maybe they can work our jobs for us, too? Perhaps that would be a different model, so we can keep the cooking and sex one at home.

I suppose an inept sexbot is the easiest one to start with, but I think I'm more looking forward to the employment bot. Heck, if we had those, we could just hang out with real men and women all day, so a sexbot wouldn't even be necessary.
61 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Paper Town, USA
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
I find argument 2 hilarious.
Raping robots.
Wait a second gotta call Peter Weller.
2988 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Fort Worth, Texas
Offline
Posted 11/16/15 , edited 11/16/15

lukedollo wrote:

actually, marriage is not from the right or the left, it was just made for property based reasons in a time before the right and left really existed.
Also, you have the right to choose who, when and why you decide to talk to any person at all. If you so choose to not, that is your choice, and you have the right to do so, but you will have to deal with the consequences.
equality, freedom, and choice are not buzzwords.
people have misused, and abused them; however that should not degrade what they actually mean and represent.

before i really delve into any sort of discussion with this, and this is by no means a attack, but what did you mean by this?

I don't think disrespected human choice and rights.


if everything else stated is in relation to that i would need that information to understand.
I think we agree, but we had ideals lost in translation.


Marriage is from the right. It's inherently religious and from the right. Humans don't have normal pair bonding sexual tendencies. It was the alpha male who got most women and his seed was the one that continued on. This wasn't an effective strategy since all men want sex, and as tribes/civilization got bigger, the threat of the alpha being killed so someone could take his spot was always extremely high, since they would be plotting it the entire time if other males were around, which they were for hunting and power purposes to protect the tribe from predators and other humans.

Pair bonding worked much better with a man and woman each pair, sexual and procreation desire was satiated and male population was stabilized since they weren't incentivized to kill each other anymore.

Sounds like it's coming out of my ass, right? You'd be wrong, it was actually GirlWritesWhat who used various studies from primates such as bonobos and early human history to mark out this theory. There's also the fact that I think the bible itself mentions the benefits and expectations of marriage.

Marriage is not a common human philosophy, they aren't wired to pair bond, men are wired to have sex with all women and women are wired to go after the wealthiest, strongest and highest status males.

This system led to a lot of bloodshed. So higher intelligence made them go for a pair bonding mating strategy after it was feasible. Even if marriage is ultimately not of religious origin, it's still the same as the contract is about commitment and sacrifice, you're supposed to know what to expect and you know what you're giving up. For men it would be surplus income and for women it would be sex. The feminist myth of female sex slavery has a tiny bit of truth to it. Rape wasn't a charge that could be applied to husbands since she sold the use of her sexual organs for surplus income.

Today, women can get married but they expectations, not obligations. So we saw the destruction of marriage happen from the 70s up until now. Marriage is down dramatically, anecdotes from pastors are from 35 a year to only 5 a year.

It was a man's obligation to have surplus income go to his wife, and sex was an obligation to her husband. You couldn't cry theft if she took what you owe her and you couldn't cry rape if a man took what you sold him. That's how it was. Sounds harsh? Well, people had better lives back then, even without anime and smartphones.

I also meant to say. "I don't think anyone disrespected human choice and rights". Because no one forces you to get married and sign a legally binding contract. It was silly to call it rape whenever you signed that over to get his money. Trying to get all the benefits with none of the downsides had an obvious adverse effect on marriage.

There's more people today, but less marriages. Make sense? No it doesn't.

People tend to take issue with me(or any Honey Badger/Neo Fem/MGTOW) because facts and history aren't wrapped and prepared in a way to make people feel secure in themselves. I think that may have been what happened between me and you.

No one is anti choice or against women's rights. Discussing how women destroy themselves shouldn't be met with adversity, especially since everyone from The Author of The Manipulated Man to Neo Feminists today to Dr. Helen Smith herself.

EDIT: Wasn't that what you were referring to when it came to choice and rights? You hinted at the fact you read my other topics and I thought that's what you were responding too. This article about Sexbots has nothing to do with choice, so if anyone went off topic, it would have been you.
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 11/16/15
This topic is uh ah ...interesting.
254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

eclair-lumiere wrote:

I don't see why anyone would want a sexbot, but meh...if they're lives are that sad, I feel for them.

But at the end of the day, it's still a robot. We don't want AI to go too far or we will end up killing ourselves


my life doesn't have to be sad for sex >_________>
you virgin slayer
254 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/16/15

GrandMasterTime wrote:

This topic is uh ah ...interesting.


very yes
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.