Because " UnAtts " doesn’t sound as cool.
And not for nothing, but there’ve been socially marginalized people for as long as there’ve been people. Way before the 1980’s.
I believe in Determism and I don’t believe in Free Will (at least as its commonly understood)…and I find neither of these concepts particularly relevant when it comes to intimacy.
A human male who can’t help but be attracted to me due to his unique combination of life experience, genetic factors, and social influences is still a radically different beast than a man-like machine who gives kisses and compliments to anyone willing to pay the sticker price.
For one thing, the human male might be attracted to me today, but there’s no guarantee he always will. So I have an incentive to put in work maintaining his attraction and committment to me. He also has such an incentive, for which I’m glad. Understanding that he has the power to leave me and yet he chooses to stay, has intrinsic emotional value. People can lack free will and still be dynamic organisms.
With Mr. Robot Man, sure I never will have to worry about him losing a boner for me because of dark circle under my eyes or occasional bed farting. But the tradeoff to that is knowing he isn’t actually attracted to me at all; he’s only getting an erection because some geek in silicon valley programmed his dick with some indiscriminate sexy time algorithm. There is no intrinsic emotional value in knowing that this robot would stay by my side no matter how poorly I treated it and no matter how badly I let myself go. Even if it could simulate realistic arguments and conflicts, manufacturers could never program them with the ability to leave their owner and expect to stay in business.
I could imagine a robot being programmed with “girlfriend-like” expectations and desires. Perhaps they could have different models come with different settings. The most basic model would essentially be a subservient doll and the most advanced model would reward you with extra good lovin’ if you remembered to pick up your socks like she asked to do. Not even going to lie, this would be ingenious if they could get come up with robots like this.
I still think only a very small minority of men would have enough money and desperation to buy them, though.
I would indeed have to be pretty desperate to pay money for a robot that would spend her entire tenure whining about how I, not she, should be doing housework.
I’d feel hypocritical about this but I don’t expect a living woman to put up with my shit either.
I once recall reading an article about a guy who repairs Real Dolls, realistic sex dolls that cost thousands of dollars.
The one thing that sticks in my memory is a story he told about a couple who bought their college age son a Real Doll hoping it would keep him from getting distracted from his studies by Real Girls.
He said that he was so disturbed by the way the doll had been obviously intentionally abused that he refused to do business with them.
It might seem crazy but I worry about encouraging misogynists to treat artificial humans with cruelty. This is the same problem that has come up in Westworld. If your victim is so human-like in nature, allowing you to abuse it makes you a sick person.
I’ve started thinking of the musings of inceldom as the Austrian School of sexual economics.
But interpersonal relationships can be messy and beyond the capabilities of some people, so, if there is something that can simulate affection without the relationship demands of a human partner, I have no objection to it.
This is definitely food for thought.
I can imagine how a typical person would eventually grow very bored with a sex robot with static programming. However, I could definitely see how someone could have fun with a sex robot that had game programming, in which you actually have to work to get a certain pay out. Maybe one time, you only have to stroke the robots hair a few minutes before she becomes receptive to intercourse. But another time you have to tell her you love her. You want her to suck you off? Maybe you have to do her first. Set her to easy mode and she will tell you what you need to do. But on hard mode, you gotta figure that shit out yourself.
It wouldn’t be too hard to program a robot to say “I love you” only after some sex acts. Maybe the robot could be programmed to say it only when the sex lasted longer than X amount of time, at Y level of intensity.
I think most people would have fun with a sex robot like this. A small but significant percentage would fall in love with a sex robot like this. It might not make sense, but then again, love rarely does. If people can fall in love with abusive ogres, they can fall in love with a robot that plays games.
Yes how heavy a woman is supposed to be is in part cultural, but the preference for a waist to hip/breast of 0.7 seems fairly universal from what I know of it.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.489.4169&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I’m not an incel, I’m just speaking for what I’ve seen them say. To many of them, I think their mentality is that most women do not want to be with an average guy, so if they do get a girl it is because she settled and secretly wants the most attractive 20% of men. And they fear that that woman will constantly nag, berate and resent him because she thinks she settled.
To them their mentality is they can either be in the best looking 20% (which isn’t realistic for most people) or they can get a woman who resents them and thinks she settled.
It’d be nice if we had more incels here willing to be honest about their beliefs, but those are beliefs I’ve seen crop up quite a lot in their community.
I was talking about the 80% - n who aren’t incels. For the small set of those who are, you’re probably right. Though since they don’t hang around with happily married people, I wouldn’t know.
I wonder how much this is sincere belief and how much its just them projecting their attitude toward settling onto women.
I hope this doesn’t sound too odd, but that idea troubles me more than the idea of a robot that is programmed to like me. What you describe sounds like a game where no one will even tell me what the rules are, or chasing a carrot on a stick that will be purposefully kept out of my reach. I can’t fathom that I’m supposed to make someone happy, but she’s deliberately withholding the information that will help me do it. I’m reminded of that episode of Star Trek where Kirk gets court-martialed because the searches for a missing crew member didn’t account for the fact that he would hide from them. I’m looking for someone, but for someone who wants to be found; not someone who’ll say “warmer” or “colder” and then hide again when I get too close.
As for programming someone to like you, it’s rather like in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe with the Dish of the Day who’s been bred to want to be eaten. It’s kind of a quirky situation, morally speaking, but I don’t see it as being inherently evil or dysfunctional.
Trek and Hitchhiker’s references in the same post; my single status isn’t as big a mystery as it seems.
All I know about monstro’s idea is that a lot of people would definitely buy that if it existed.
It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than a Fitbit programmed to cheer when you reach your step goal for the day.
Do you think a robot that provides positive feedback when you treat it lovingly would be too tricky to handle? I mean, I’d get your concern if the robot acted totally capriciously and wholly unlike your average woman would act in a similar situation. But a robot rewarding you with sweet behaviors in response to acts of kindness on your part (like engaging in small talk, paying it compliments, etc.) seems pretty reasonable.
I could even see such a robot being a great, low-pressure way to teach men how to improve their social skills if they’ve struggled mightily in that department. A robot could be programmed to be direct and frank with you when you unknowingly start doing unattractive things, so you know what your weak spots are and can fix them.
I’ve never used one, but it sounds like a Fitbit will tell me what the goal is. What monstro described, and what I’ve heard in other places, sounds like moving the goalposts, in the dark, and not even telling me if there are goalposts.
And even your description sounds more like a game than I like. Why can’t we engage in small talk because I like small talk? If I compliment a woman, it’s because that’s what I sincerely think and feel at that moment. How sincere would it be if I did it just to rack up points for power-ups and a blow job later on?
I don’t keep up with pop culture, but what exactly are incels? Are they comic book nerds who wear fedoras?
That only makes sense to me if you think the robot can understand those compliments. And, if that’s the case, then I’d argue you have a thinking, feeling creature. And then I would consider it wrong to make them a sex bot–as they’d actually be a sex slave.
As far as I can see, your choices in a non-conscious sex bot are either having it let you do whatever you want or having it work like a sort of game. Yes, even possibly a game where part of the fun is figuring out what the rules are. Though I do get if those aren’t your thing: I get frustrated by them myself.
Now small talk I could see simulating. It has very little meaning. So it’s already fairly close to the way the more advanced chat bots work. Add good speech recognition and some pre-programmed mannerisms, and I could see that taking off. And I guess that it could be a feature added to a sex bot.
But complimenting something that doesn’t understand you seems about as fun as complimenting Alexa or Cortana. Maybe fun once to get the response, but, then, what’s the point?
Well, unless it’s a sort of training thing–like compliments mean it’s doing a good job and should continue. But I’d think it’d be easier to have that be fixed command. “Good bot!” “No, bat bot!”
I don’t like playing games either, and I’ve managed just fine by being up front about that with others. It’s not the norm, so it’s something you’d want to communicate in advance.
It kind of sounds like you want women to almost act like robots. Not necessarily “programmed to like you”, but at least acting in a predictable way where they react to you in predictable ways. Almost like they came with a manual.
It doesn’t work like that.
First of all, (at least when I was single), a big reason I might talk with a woman in the first place is because I want a blow-job power up. Nothing wrong with that. She probably even knows it. But maybe she doesn’t want to just blow every dork who speaks to her. Or maybe she wants to give me a blow job but doesn’t know if I just want to have a sincere conversation with her.
The point is that a real girl has her own needs, wants and fears, whereas a robot doesn’t. The robot just goes through it’s programmed routines, even if they are convincingly realistic.
Yes, I thought this issue might come up. That’s definitely a problem. But I still think the existence of companion robots would overall be a net good for the world.
Another disturbing issue to ponder: childlike sex robots for pedophiles. Should those be allowed? If it keeps pedophiles from offending against real children because it gives them an outlet for their desires, I would say yes.
Involuntary celibate—they’re a component of the Men’s Rights/GamerGate community who espouse a virulent and violent form of misogyny.
They are angry that they aren’t having sexual relationships with the women they find most attractive and they blame women for it.
Some mass killers have been connected to this community—Elliott Rodger, who went on a killing spree in 2014 has become a hero for them.