# Sex robots for Incels? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 12, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783 "2018-07-12T15:15:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/181 "2018-07-15T16:07:40Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You must be sad and dismal if you’re willing to concede that a sex robot is your best option. I’m 33. I’ve been trying to find a long term romantic partner for the past 17 years. In all this time, I’ve only had one real girlfriend, and that relationship only lasted a month. That was 8 years ago. I’ve been on dozens of dates (the first dates were almost always last dates). I did not reach this conclusion hastily. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/182 "2018-07-15T16:14:31Z")
Should the government pay for cosmetic surgery to help unattractive women get out of their spinsterhood? Inquiring minds want to know. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/183 "2018-07-15T16:19:08Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I’m not sure what data that one has. I did find this article which claims on tinder the top 78% of women compete for the top 20% of men. > > [https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a](https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a) > > Stuff like that makes incels despondent because 80% of men can’t be in the best looking 20%. And even if they practice self improvement, they are just competing for women who themselves don’t have to improve. The idea of becoming fit, athletic and wearing great clothes plus having a handsome face and a good job, all to be good enough to date out of shape single mothers with debt is depressing for a lot of guys. So they give up and get resentful. > > Lots of incels look at things like that (for one they can’t be in the top 20% realistically, and being in the top 20% is relative so as other guys improve, your position drops. But even if they could be in the top quintile of looks it just means they are good enough for unremarkable women with oversized demands), get depressed and angry and give up. They feel their is no winning move for them. Either be invisible to women, or constantly self improve on an endless treadmill you will probably never win just to be good enough for women with unrealistic demands. At root that is how a lot of incels feel about dating. I don’t know if tinder, a site designed for quickly looking at superficial characteristics and judging based on those, is a useful place to get statistics on what people actually look for. Sure, in that environment, there is no reason to choose anything except the best eye candy, as that is the entirety of it. In relationships that are created in a more natural setting, I think that personal appearance is a much lower bar. No non-existent, to be sure, but much less important. > [@Blalron](#): > > Because a woman with a beautiful body AND personality is better than a woman with simply a beautiful body and no personality. But I’d rather have the latter than no partner at all. > > If I had $5000, I’d buy one in a heartbeat. I probably will in the next 3 years or so. That’s just a doll. A robot is going to run much more. I’d rather have a car. I’m gonna go ahead and say that I entirely disagree with the idea that such things should be provided by the govt at taxpayer expense for being an incel. That said, I do not see any problem with them being a prescribable and covered treatment for those diagnosed with mental issues that a robotic surrogate could help with. $5,000, even $10,000 isn’t all that much when we are talking about medical costs. But then, I also think that our entire mental health system needs to be restructured, to recognize that people with mental illness are the least capable of seeking the help they need. If sexual surrogacy, both live and robotic, are determined to be useful parts of that by respect people in the field, then I would certainly support that. If someone just wants to fuck without putting in any effort, they can buy their own. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/184 "2018-07-15T16:37:44Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Should the government pay for cosmetic surgery to help unattractive women get out of their spinsterhood? Inquiring minds want to know Maybe. If I were a member of Congress trying to figure out how to allocate resources, I’d prioritize things like Universal Basic Income and Universal Healthcare first. But I believe that as a society gains more and more affluence, we can afford to keep on lifting the bottom of the safety net higher and higher. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/185 "2018-07-15T16:47:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > That said, I do not see any problem with them being a prescribable and covered treatment for those diagnosed with mental issues that a robotic surrogate could help with. $5,000, even $10,000 isn’t all that much when we are talking about medical costs. You’ve pretty much nailed what I was trying to say. Not everybody is going to be handed a robot surrogate. Only those who have bona fide diagnosed mental or physical conditions will be “prescribed” a robot. I doubt I would personally meet the criteria for being “disabled” so I’ll just have to fend for myself. > [@](#): > > But then, I also think that our entire mental health system needs to be restructured, to recognize that people with mental illness are the least capable of seeking the help they need. If sexual surrogacy, both live and robotic, are determined to be useful parts of that by respect people in the field, then I would certainly support that. Yes. A robot surrogate may be _part_ of a treatment plan that also includes psychiatric medication and cognitive behavioral therapy. I don’t think it’s a panacea on its own, but it could be part of a useful treatment plan. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/186 "2018-07-15T17:28:36Z")
Sure, some incel loser going home to his crappy apartment to make sweet love to his Uncanny Valley Sally[sup]TM[/sup] sex robot is a pretty sad image. What about some rich investment banker or lawyer working 100 hours a week who doesn’t want a family or even an annoying girlfriend, coming home to his Scarlet Johansen AI operating system from Her in a synthetic Scarlet Johansen Ghost in the Shell body? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/187 "2018-07-15T18:00:08Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Sure, some incel loser going home to his crappy apartment to make sweet love to his Uncanny Valley Sally[sup]TM[/sup] sex robot is a pretty sad image. What about some rich investment banker or lawyer working 100 hours a week who doesn’t want a family or even an annoying girlfriend, coming home to his Scarlet Johansen AI operating system from Her in a synthetic Scarlet Johansen Ghost in the Shell body? I’d hope that Scarlet Johansen is getting royalties. ---
**Author:** ![Nisslbody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e36b37/32.png) [@Nisslbody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nisslbody)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/188 "2018-07-15T18:47:13Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I’m not really sure you guys understand what I meant. In the incel community there is a sense of despair because of things like the 80/20 rule which basically states women mostly only want the top 20% of guys. And 80% of guys cannot be in the top 20%. You know that incels made that up to explain away their singleness, right? It’s not a real thing. ---
**Author:** ![Nisslbody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e36b37/32.png) [@Nisslbody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nisslbody)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/189 "2018-07-15T18:55:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > And I never said that changing myself to be appealing to women would be possible - _other_ people here claim that. I’m of the opinion that it’s actually a literal impossibility. FWIW, I’ve seen a lot of chronically single people get into fulfilling relationships after spending a year or more in therapy working on their inner selves. Emotional health is pretty attractive. It also facilitates reasonable expectations, helping people approach others who occupy a similar status in terms of interests, lifestyle, and physical looks. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/190 "2018-07-15T19:25:42Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Sure, some incel loser going home to his crappy apartment to make sweet love to his Uncanny Valley Sally[sup]TM[/sup] sex robot is a pretty sad image. What about some rich investment banker or lawyer working 100 hours a week who doesn’t want a family or even an annoying girlfriend, coming home to his Scarlet Johansen AI operating system from Her in a synthetic Scarlet Johansen Ghost in the Shell body? Some dude’s working on that. I won’t link to any videos, but go to YouTube and do a search on “Scarlett Johansson robot.” ---
**Author:** ![Nisslbody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e36b37/32.png) [@Nisslbody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nisslbody)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/191 "2018-07-15T20:11:51Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Artificial Intelligence is getting better and better. > > Some of the strongest skepticism I’ve seen in this thread is coming from women. I think women have more sophisticated tastes in partners than men, generally speaking. From a perspective of evolutionary psychology, a woman is attracted first and foremost to a man’s behavior, not his body. An attractive body is definitely a plus, but it’s not the primary trait that she looks for. She wants a man who has some degree of social status, so he can provide resources for any future offspring. This is going to be more difficult for a robot to emulate. > > The primary thing that a man looks for in a woman is a beautiful body. Personality is a secondary consideration. Not irrelevant, but not as important. I realize that this statement may make a lot of women uncomfortable, but I believe it to be true. I don’t believe that a robot has to pass the Turing Test to satisfy most men. Speaking as a scientist, please stop taking evolutionary psychology seriously. It is not a real science. Most evo psych “researchers” have ZERO training in evolution, and don’t even know how to propose a mechanism of action. They are simply making up plausible-sounding stories that match their pre-existing beliefs, then conducting research designed to support them. There is a reason evo psych is generally looked on with distain by physical and natural scientists, and even by most social scientists. The field is dominated by misogynists. It’s not science, and it’s rare to find an evo psych study that has more than vague plausible credibility. Most of them fall under the heading of “cool story, bro”. There are good evolutionary psychologists out there who do have backgrounds in genetics and evolution, and who apply real scientific rigor to their research rather than simply seeking to confirm an appealing hypothesis that confirms to their personal biases, but they are few and far between. > **[Four Fallacies of Pop Evolutionary Psychology](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/four-fallacies-of-pop-evolutionary-2012-12-07/)** > > Some evolutionary psychologists have trumpeted claims about how the human mind evolved that other scholars take issue with. Here is how the evidence shapes up > **[Problems in evolutionary psychology — LessWrong](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4MpodyRwdYXEeC3jn/problems-in-evolutionary-psychology)** > > Note: The primary target of the post is not professional, academic evolutionary psychology. Rather, I am primarily cautioning amateurs (such as LW re… ---
**Author:** ![Nisslbody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e36b37/32.png) [@Nisslbody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nisslbody)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/192 "2018-07-15T20:20:19Z")
And, again speaking as a scientist (neurobiologist with psych background), I think one of the most toxic things to come out of the epidemic of scientific ignorance is the inability to correctly interpret even wholly valid behavioral research results; statistically significant differences in attraction are still usually only slight differences. Having a “preference” for one body type may mean that there are a few percentage points difference in preference; preference is not an on/off switch for most people. For example, I would prefer Chinese food over pizza pretty much all the time. However, I still enjoy the hell out of pizza, and will happily eat it and enjoy it. I’ll even seek it out. That is an example of differential preference which is far more applicable to human sexual attraction than the bizarrely disconnected/disordered idea that if someone isn’t in the “top 20%” they are simply unwantable. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/193 "2018-07-15T20:23:13Z")
> [@Nisslbody](#): > > You know that incels made that up to explain away their singleness, right? It’s not a real thing. The Pareto Principle is something I’ve encountered in the business world (example- 80% of customer complaints come from 20% of the customers) but as applied to romantic relationships? It seems completely inapplicable. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/194 "2018-07-15T20:27:31Z")
Meet Harmony The Sex Robot. [Meet Harmony The Sex Robot.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orBH_Qnw3eY) (Not Safe For Work). Obviously this is a first generation robot, but even so I’m quite impressed. Just imagine what we’ll have in 10 years. The future is so bright, I’ve gotta wear shades. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/195 "2018-07-15T21:13:21Z")
**Blalron** , please observe the two-click rule when posting NSFW links, though I appreciate you labeling it so. I’ve put yours behind a spoiler box. ---
**Author:** ![Nisslbody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e36b37/32.png) [@Nisslbody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nisslbody)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/196 "2018-07-15T21:29:43Z")
If you want a sex robot, knock yourself out saving up for a sex robot, dude. No need to concoct elaborate justifications for it. ---
**Author:** ![Nawth\_Chucka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c57346/32.png) [@Nawth\_Chucka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nawth_Chucka)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/197 "2018-07-15T21:40:49Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > /snipped by me/ I think the government should pay for sex robots to ease the suffering of Involuntary Celibates. You’re saying men are entitled to sex. Men are not entitled to sex. The only option is for incels to accept the fact that wanting is not the same as deserving. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/198 "2018-07-15T21:42:15Z")
I’m just not seeing the advantages a sex robot has over pornhub and a fleshlight. You’re not being intimate, you’re not pleasing your partner. You’re just rubbing one out in an elaborate manner. ---
**Author:** ![Nisslbody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e36b37/32.png) [@Nisslbody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nisslbody)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/199 "2018-07-15T21:52:37Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > The Pareto Principle is something I’ve encountered in the business world (example- 80% of customer complaints come from 20% of the customers) but as applied to romantic relationships? It seems completely inapplicable. Yeah, it seems mostly like mental gymnastics, trying to shoehorn an inapplicable and unrelated phenomenon into a box in order to avoid facing, let alone dealing with, the likelihood that it is something about how they interact with other people that makes them unattractive, rather than just luck of the draw and the laws of nature. I think it’s driven by a combination of fragile self-esteem and fear of failure; unlike many physical characteristics, emotional health is malleable and behavioral skills can be learned and unlearned. Ignoring this allows them to wholly abdicate responsibility for their lack of sexual relationships and place the blame on others (women, nature, more attractive men), leaving what little fragile self-esteem they do have intact and unthreatened. Interestingly, this mindset is not dissimilar from that of women who get into relationship after relationship with abusive men, and eventually blame men, nature, and other women for this recurring relationship pattern, refusing to seek therapy to change the patterns of behavior they are engaging in that lead to their vulnerability to manipulative, controlling, and abusive men. In both groups, those who do eventually enter therapy with the mindset that they can take responsibility for some aspects of the problem tend to have good success rates. Those who do not are basically stuck in their loop forever. The problem is, people get blinded by their reality tunnel, and refuse to believe that anything outside of their personal experience exists at all. Many people who get stuck this way grew up in deeply dysfunctional homes, which they believe to be normal because it’s all they’ve experienced. Believing that your version of normal may, in fact, not be normal at all is absolutely crucial for therapy to be effective, which requires being open to the possibility that your worldview is fundamentally flawed. Not everyone has the capacity to do that. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2018, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/200 "2018-07-15T22:07:00Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > I’m just not seeing the advantages a sex robot has over pornhub and a fleshlight. You’re not being intimate, you’re not pleasing your partner. You’re just rubbing one out in an elaborate manner. That’s the one element to this discussion that has not been addressed. Why do incels specifically need a sex robot as opposed to access to free porn and Jergens? The unhappily unattached and sexually frustrated have always existed. However, it has never been easier to be in this demographic given both internet porn and cheap e-commerce. So why are high tech options suddenly essential _now_? I mean, it’s like positing that the government should give out Segway’s to folks without cars. Not provide them with public transportation. Not build more sidewalks and affordable housing in business districts. Not distribute bicycles. But give folks free Segways–the most expensive, high-tech gizmos out there. That’s a laughable position and so is the sex robot one. And I’m a big government liberal who is quite sympathetic to folks who are socially marginalized. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783.md?page=11)