- Sep 27, 2020
- 8d 19h 46m
BackgroundTo start with, here are a couple of background references for you to consider. First, a report by the Guardian titled, Rise of Sex Robots: View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vN0cs_-RSs
At 13:30, the reporter interviews Kathleen Richardson, an anthropology professor and senior research fellow at Cambridge. She's also the founder of The Campaign Against Sex Robots. She wants them banned entirely. Here's an excerpt from the interview:
The object (a sexbot) starts to fill the places of other human beings – of hurt feelings, of suffering, of despair, of loneliness. And I would call that part of rape culture. The more they participate in activities that are outside of this consensual framework, they then turn themselves into objects.
Yikes sweaty! Let's unpack this.
She acknowledges that you're feeling lonely. She says that if a sexbot stops you from feeling lonely, then the sexbot has "filled the place of other human beings." In other words, you were supposed to find a woman, not a sexbot. And see, the difference between a human and a sexbot is ... the sexbot has no choice. It's just doing what it's programmed to do. It can't say "no" therefore it can't consent.
And what follows is the money quote: "that's part of rape culture - participating in activities that are outside of that consensual framework."
When you're lonely, you're supposed to find a woman and gain her consent so that she loves you and makes you not feel lonely. If you use a robot which has no choice then you're participating in rape culture (and, the insinuation, harming real women).
Okay, that's a pretty typical feminist take. I wont even bother to refute it (unless some lurker wants to watch me do it). I'll just point out that she doesn't give a shit about you or your plight. When the tables inevitably turn - when old women are lonely, someone is going to make an old man robot that just says "yes dear" and "that's so interesting" and I can fucking promise you that this feminist wont make the same argument to deny women companionship. In fact, she'll say that lonely old women is proof of patriarchy.
Regardless, this feminist has substantial political power. She absolutely will have her way. There are no political parties that are going to take your side, but they'll all jump at the chance to do the will of a feminist. And that brings me to background reference 2: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/famous-sex-robot-can-now-refuse-sex-if-shes-not-in-the-mood
This guy is attempting to placate feminists by designing the concept of "consent" into a sexbot. Here's a quote from the article:
The upgrade will allow Samantha to enter “dummy mode”, an unresponsive state, due to a variety of reasons including an overly aggressive partner. She can also enter this mode if she feels bored with her partner’s attentions.
This new “dummy” mode might offer an opportunity for male users to learn a thing or two about consent and respecting one’s partners
The Inevitable Clown World Solution
The last sentence in the quote above illustrates what everyone (especially the feminist) assumes about a man who would purchase a sexbot. You need to "learn a thing or two" - the fact that women don't find you attractive is your fault (right IT?) and thus any sexbot you're allowed to have needs to train you in how consent works!
Of course, no woman is ever going to find you attractive, so it's not clear what you'll be doing with your newly taught knowledge of consent. It's not like you're going to graduate from sexbot training, get a PhD in Enthusiastic Consent, and then suddenly a woman is going to think, "you know what, I ordinarily fuck chads 24/7 but now that you have this diploma I want to date you!"
But anyway, I predict that this will be the goal/direction in clown world - they will insist that sexbots simulate consent.
Programming Sexbots to Require Consent WILL NOT WORK
They'll fail. The feminists demanding this and the betas trying to implement it will fail. Here's why: there are only three options for simulating consent.
Option 1: Randomization
If your sexbot just rolls 2d6 and consents on all but 12, people will very quickly work out the RNG rules and publish "guides" just like they do for literally every video game ever. That's the problem that feminists will run into. We've been playing video games our whole lives. We are very comfortable navigating systems of rules even when randomization is a component of the rules.
If my sexbot says "no" one time in 36 (as would be the case if it's rolling 2d6) and I know from the guide I just read that the cooldown time is 15 minutes, am I going to be especially bothered by that? Nope, not really.
The fact that I'm not bothered by this will enrage feminists though, because the whole point, from their perspective, is to ruin the sexbot. So they might demand a higher percentage of "no's" or a longer cooldown time. Okay, but I still know what the underlying rules are. If the sexbot says "no" 50% of the time, I will know that before I purchase it, and I can decide to mitigate that by buying two sexbots (25% chance of a "yes") or any number of other workarounds that I would do in a video game.
I win. Feminists lose.
Option 2: The Grind
What if the sexbot only consents after you perform certain tasks. Internally, there's a "consent bar" that you have to fill up by performing quests, or whatever.
Is that a problem for me? Nope. Because again, just like with video games, people will figure out the "most effective tactic available" and they publish it and I will know, before I buy a sexbot, exactly how many fucks/hr I can get and exactly which tasks fill up the bar most efficiently.
This too will enrage feminists. They literally have memes about this already:
They know full well that real women don't work this way, and they're offended by this as a concept.
Option 3: Chad's Only
And that brings us to the actual realistic option. A sexbot could make some kind of evaluation of you on an alpha-beta-omega scale - it could measure your height, for example - and decide "you're not chad so therefore I don't consent."
Feminists will like the sound of this option because they'll believe it'll deny incels sex, and they just irrationally hate you so that's their goal.
I would still not be terribly bothered by this option because (a) it's a huge giant black pill for the entire world. It reveals the ugly truth about women that we've long known. (b) I would still know in advance the rules that the sexbot will use to evaluate me. A huge part of the frustration of everyone here, I think you'll agree, is the fact that the real rules that real women use are so opaque - so we're surrounded by people dispensing false hope and bad advice ("just be yourself bro"). It's also frustrating that we're surrounded by bad actors making false assumptions ("have you tried taking a shower"). If nothing else, it'd be catharsis to be able to point to the code and say, "there is no amount of showers or confidence that gets a short man into consent territory - stop fucking lying!"