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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know that incels made that up to explain away their singleness, right? It’s not a real thing.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Meet Harmony The Sex Robot. Meet Harmony The Sex Robot. (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.
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.
If you want a sex robot, knock yourself out saving up for a sex robot, dude. No need to concoct elaborate justifications for it.
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.
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.
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.
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.