# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/61 "2018-07-13T00:12:14Z")
> [@susan](#): > > :dubious: Cite for this “rule”? As a counselor for decades, this is simply not what I see or hear. The whole idea of some percentage that’s the “top” people in some undefined way is a really problematic way to think about other people and relationships. It smacks of fantasy and is objectifying. Most people are desirable in some ways and not in others, and it also depends who you are and where you’re standing. There are no objective criteria. > **[Pareto principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle)** > > The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes (the "vital few"). > In 1941, management consultant Joseph M. Juran developed the concept in the context of quality control and improvement after reading the works of Italian sociologist and economist Vilfredo Pareto, who wrote in 1906 about the 80/20 connection while teaching at the University of Lausa... Its actually a frighteningly accurate concept across a variety of disciplines. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/62 "2018-07-13T00:13:47Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > [Pareto principle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) > > Its actually a frighteningly accurate concept across a variety of disciplines. Can you please explain what you mean? Like would it be valid to say that “80% of the attractiveness of a woman comes from just 2 variables, weight and age”? Or “80% of the attractiveness of a man comes from just height and disposable income”? ---
**Author:** ![P-man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/p-man/32/3606_2.png) [@P-man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/P-man)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/63 "2018-07-13T02:58:53Z")
I went 6 years without sex, and 3 years without a date, in my twenties. I was tall, in shape, and either in grad school or employed. A sex robot would have been no more satisfying to me than my right hand. I could have afforded to hire a prositute, but the idea of.having to resort to that would have been incredibly depressing. Resorting to a robot would have been more so. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/64 "2018-07-13T05:12:11Z")
> [@susan](#): > > :dubious: Cite for this “rule”? As a counselor for decades, this is simply not what I see or hear. The whole idea of some percentage that’s the “top” people in some undefined way is a really problematic way to think about other people and relationships. It smacks of fantasy and is objectifying. Most people are desirable in some ways and not in others, and it also depends who you are and where you’re standing. There are no objective criteria. It is a red pill rule of thumb. The incel community from what I know of it is largely made up of men who became cynical due to red pill philosophy because they feel they are not in the elite minority of men. > [@drachillix](#): > > [Pareto principle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) > > Its actually a frighteningly accurate concept across a variety of disciplines. There is that, but a big part of it comes from online dating. For men who aren’t in the top 20% in looks in online dating sites, they are mostly invisible. Men who are in the top 20% in looks have their pick of women. So the rule is partly based on that too, some men get cynical and despondent because they feel if they aren’t in the best looking minority that they are invisible to women in general. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/65 "2018-07-13T07:36:27Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > I was going by “a man of breeding age who is involuntarily celibate for a substantial period of time, on the order of years” > > I said that men go by weight and physical appearance. This is a well substantiated fact, would you like to see a cite? Yes, other factors count, but if she’s young and slim and has a vagina he’s going to say yes unless he has a better offer. Women are more complex, but ultimately are going to choose men who have characteristics that are very hard to ‘cheat’. Height and income are two they weight very strongly. It takes a concerted effort and luck over years to decades to substantially increase your income, and you can’t change your height without extreme measures. Fortunately for the survival of the species, not even a majority of men and women think this way. Men and women who are not in your elite and who think they are and think this way tend to get disappointed. We’ve been talking about weight. We have a friend, very nice, who is a bit on the heavy side. On a vacation she met a guy of similar size. They hit it off immediately. got married, and have been happily married for 30 years now. If either of them had felt entitled as you seem to think they should be, they’d both be lonely now. Maybe the definition of incel should be involuntarily celibate and bitter about it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/66 "2018-07-13T07:41:02Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > It is a red pill rule of thumb. The incel community from what I know of it is largely made up of men who became cynical due to red pill philosophy because they feel they are not in the elite minority of men. Or could it be that they think they are in the elite, but are not getting the action they think they deserve? > [@](#): > > There is that, but a big part of it comes from online dating. For men who aren’t in the top 20% in looks in online dating sites, they are mostly invisible. Men who are in the top 20% in looks have their pick of women. So the rule is partly based on that too, some men get cynical and despondent because they feel if they aren’t in the best looking minority that they are invisible to women in general. I know nothing about online dating, but what do they do in respond to women not in the top 20% either? Do they reject them and wait for the responses from the elite which never come? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/67 "2018-07-13T11:09:25Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > I said that men go by weight and physical appearance. This is a well substantiated fact, would you like to see a cite? Yep. Heterosexual men, first and foremost, are attracted to physical appearance. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, they are looking for markers of fertility. Hip/waist ratio, symmetrical face, smooth skin, youthful appearance. This doesn’t mean that personality is irrelevant, but it is a secondary consideration. The demand for beautiful women outstrips the supply. To ask men to settle with the chubby woman they aren’t attracted to simply isn’t reasonable. You can’t ask someone to be attracted to someone they don’t feel attraction towards, anymore than you can chide a woman who doesn’t feel attracted to an Incel. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/68 "2018-07-13T11:24:45Z")
It’s not just men who are shallow with regards to looks. Women overwhelmingly prefer men who are taller than them. Short men are at a disadvantage in the dating market. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/69 "2018-07-13T12:44:49Z")
The 80/20 rule has some validity in many respects, but it’s no more a rule than Bode’s Law is a law. And it’s utter bullshit to say only handsome men and beautiful women can find sex partners. The first step is to look at the opposite sex as human beings, not conquests. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/70 "2018-07-13T12:47:12Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > It is a red pill rule of thumb. The incel community from what I know of it is largely made up of men who became cynical due to red pill philosophy because they feel they are not in the elite minority of men. > > There is that, but a big part of it comes from online dating. For men who aren’t in the top 20% in looks in online dating sites, they are mostly invisible. Men who are in the top 20% in looks have their pick of women. So the rule is partly based on that too, some men get cynical and despondent because they feel if they aren’t in the best looking minority that they are invisible to women in general. They feel? Odds are, if someone thinks they aren’t in the top 10-20%, they are not. As you imply, it doesn’t make it impossible to win offline, especially in situations where they might appear relatively attractive, but the actual reality is the deck is stacked. The odds are low. ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/71 "2018-07-13T12:50:19Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > What everyone in this thread seems to have forgotten is that men have a hard coded preference for slim, young women. Worldwide surveys of sexual preference show it’s one of the few things that men consistently everywhere look for. I’m going to need a cite for this, because frankly I think you’re talking directly out of your ass right here. ---
**Author:** ![Delicious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@Delicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Delicious)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/72 "2018-07-13T13:14:10Z")
They just need to be more handsome and charming, I was single at one point so I became more handsome and voila, problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/73 "2018-07-13T13:34:38Z")
A sex robot is not a substitute for a human being, and won’t be for a long time. By the time it is a substitute for a human being, SJWs will be clamoring that it’s slavery and so much for that. ---
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/74 "2018-07-13T13:37:56Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > A sex robot is not a substitute for a human being, and won’t be for a long time. By the time it is a substitute for a human being, SJWs will be clamoring that it’s slavery and so much for that. If a robot actually becomes a really good substitute for a human being, it might very well be slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/75 "2018-07-13T13:42:09Z")
> [@Tatterdemalion](#): > > If a robot actually becomes a really good substitute for a human being, it might very well be slavery. See, there ya go. And we didn’t even have to wait for the singularity. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/76 "2018-07-13T13:45:32Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > A sex robot is not a substitute for a human being, and won’t be for a long time. By the time it is a substitute for a human being, SJWs will be clamoring that it’s slavery and so much for that. Assuming that it’s a sentient AI, and it’s programmed to enjoy being “enslaved”, what’s the harm? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/77 "2018-07-13T13:46:44Z")
> [@DCnDC](#): > > I’m going to need a cite for this, because frankly I think you’re talking directly out of your ass right here. You need a cite to show that men prefer fertile women? > **['Men still prefer women to be young and skinny', says unhelpful new study](https://www.redonline.co.uk/wellbeing/fitness/a528606/its-official-men-still-prefer-women-to-be-young-and-skinny/)** > > Seriously? Its common sense, the same way that women prefer men who have higher socio-economic status. There are obviously other factors at play, and most men and women cannot get the ‘ideal’ partner for a wide range of reasons. But it is there. Having said that, it is just a preference and one of many (another preference people have is that someone not abandon them or cheat on them, and if your partner is way out of your league the odds of that go up. So most people will adjust their tastes to match what they can realistically get). Lots of men happily date and marry women who are not skinny or young, just as many women happily date and marry men who are not tall, handsome, athletic with high socio-economic status. But those preferences are still there. > [@Voyager](#): > > Or could it be that they think they are in the elite, but are not getting the action they think they deserve? > I know nothing about online dating, but what do they do in respond to women not in the top 20% either? Do they reject them and wait for the responses from the elite which never come? My impression is they know they aren’t in the elite, and they feel like they have no options because of it. If a woman not in the top 20% shows an interest in them, the men try to sleep with them but they do not form relationships with them. The narrative is essentially that most of the women chase the top fraction of men, the men sleep with those women but refuse to form relationships with them. So the women feel used and most of the men feel invisible and unwanted. ---
**Author:** ![Tatterdemalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/43a26b/32.png) [@Tatterdemalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tatterdemalion)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/78 "2018-07-13T13:49:28Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > See, there ya go. And we didn’t even have to wait for the singularity. Well, I don’t think it’s a problem we need to face any time soon. And nothing currently on the drawing boards will fit the case, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/79 "2018-07-13T14:22:31Z")
> [@Tatterdemalion](#): > > If a robot actually becomes a really good substitute for a human being, it might very well be slavery. If you think about it, the way you would build a good robot sex companion using advanced versions of today’s AI techniques is the machine is internally some scripts defining a dataflow. The actual architecture is the machine is matching each scenario with nearby situations in state space to situations seen in the past. So the squick requirement is you need hundreds of thousands of hours of feedback from, initially, expert human lovers with their partners. That is, you need to record, probably with high resolution depth sensing cameras and microphones, a reference for what a real human would do. Then all deployed sexbots would upload experience tuples from their sessions where the machine is measuring the short and long term responses of the human subject. So when the machine says something to you, no matter how real it seems, it’s just trying to elicit a positive response from you, because men like you in the past responded positively. Internally it’s just trying to max or min a matrix of numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2018, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783/80 "2018-07-13T14:22:55Z")
> [@Ashtura](#): > > A sex robot is not a substitute for a human being, and won’t be for a long time. It depends on what you mean by “substitute.” No, it won’t be able to perform every single thing that a human companion can do. It won’t be able to have a conversation with me about the relative merits of _Pulp Fiction_ versus _The Shawshank Redemption_, or Deontological Ethics versus Consequentialism. The sex robot probably won’t play golf with me. What I believe is on the near horizon is a Robot Companion that can alleviate much of the distress caused by a lack of physical intimacy. It’s will be able to mimic many of the non-verbal cues romantic partners use to bond with each other. Realistic feeling skin, cheeks that blush, eyes that will be able to track your movement and hold eye contact, pupils that dilate. She will be able to moan in response to touch, say some flirtatious comments. Think of happily married couples that don’t speak the same language but are nonetheless able to bond with each other. That’s what I’m thinking about when I muse about sex robots. Does this mean that the human race will go extinct because men won’t bother with real women? No. But it will mean that some men who are unlucky with getting romantic partners can achieve some measure of happiness that they couldn’t get before. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sex-robots-for-incels/817783.md?page=5)