Promotion turns Kyiv fuel station into a virtual beachfront.
One petrol station in the Ukranian capital had a very beachfront feel about it on September 26 when dozens of women dressed in their bikinis turned up to take advantage of the latest promotion.
Bad news for anti-sexbot agitators Kathleen Richardson and Erik Billing – a world renowned expert in the field of predicting the future of technology has published a report claiming that women will largely be redundant by 2050 as most men will prefer to have sex with robots.
The report, published by futurologist Dr Ian Pearson, draws up a timeline for the rise of the sex bots. By 2030, virtual sex via VR devices will be as prevalent as porn is today, by 2035 the majority of people will own sex toys that work in conjunction with virtual reality sex, and by 2050 sex with robots will have overtaken human on human sex.
Ian Pearson claims an 85% success rate in predicting long term technological trends. He is indeed a world renowned expert in the field of ‘futurology’, and his foresight is sought after by leading companies and even governments. Unlike Dr. Kathleen Richardson and her made up role as ‘robot ethic professor’ at a third rate British university, as well as Erik Billing, the Swedish mangina working at a university ranked just inside the top 2000 in the world, Pearson is a genuine and proven expert in future technology and its likely impact upon society and social ethics.
Although he doesn’t quite claim that men will be only using sexbots by 2050, assuming the likely truth that most users of sexbots will be men, then it follows that if the majority of human beings in 35 years time will be having sex with robots rather than fellow humans, then almost all men will be MGTOW…with their sexbots. The clock is indeed ticking on female sexual tyranny.
Jimmy Tarbuck, the popular Liverpool comedian and school friend of John Lennon, has been one of the highest profile victims of the medieval witchhunt against celebrities taking place in the UK since the Savile scandal broke. Here, he breaks down on national tv whilst describing how no less than 18 members of the police broke into his home one morning, without warning, to seize his possesions and arrest him on the basis of a false claim that he had sexually abused a young boy decades ago.
And here’s an excellent editorial that appeared in the Sunday Times the other week over another celebrity victim who had charges dropped after a year of stress and humiliation – Paul Gambaccini :
On October 10 last year the disc jockey and music connoisseur Paul Gambaccini was told he would not be facing charges of child sex abuse. Had the British justice system been working properly he might have greeted this news with unalloyed relief. His reaction has instead been chiefly one of anger, and with good reason. He had by that time been on police bail for 12 months. During that time his name and reputation were dragged through the mud even though police had not interviewed him since the day of his arrest, or produced a shred of evidence against him.
Gambaccini’s ordeal by bail is merely the most egregious of many in which the police and Crown Prosecution Service, caught napping by the Savile scandal, have overcompensated to shameful effect. The basics of due process have been forgotten. Rules intended to help police investigations have been abused to drag them out, and the real victims of child sex abuse are in danger of being overlooked by police forces pursuing celebrities for the sake of being seen to act. The case for reform is clear and urgent.
In an interview today Gambaccini describes being overcome by “rage attacks” while under investigation. He claims police in his case trampled on the principle that the law holds everyone innocent until proven guilty. The personal cost to an innocent man is clearly too high, but what his story says about the trustworthiness of the judicial system is even more troubling.
The presumption of innocence requires that police scrupulously follow the evidence. When there is no evidence there should be no fishing expeditions. It is clear now that Gambaccini’s innocence, and the flimsiness of the allegations against him, could have been established with a few quick checks. They were not made. Instead, the shadow of suspicion hung over him as police invited colleagues and acquaintances to testify against him and renewed his bail every three months without judicial oversight or approval.
Senior figures were responsible but have not been held accountable. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), and her predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, have all been in a position to stop the prosecutorial pendulum swinging from indifference to the rights of victims to indifference to the rights of the accused. They have failed in this duty, not only in Gambaccini’s case but in others that formed part of Operation Yewtree, into alleged child sex abuse, and Operation Elveden, into alleged bribery of public officials by journalists. There are worrying signs, too, in the investigation into an alleged Westminster paedophile ring, in which the evidence of a single witness has been deemed “credible and true” without corroboration.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former DPP, has supported Gambaccini’s call for a ban on naming suspects before they have been charged. This is problematic. It would establish a legal framework for secret arrests that would be inimical to justice and free speech. What is clear is that the right balance between protection for accusers and the accused has not been struck. Anonymity is vital for genuine victims of abuse, but those who bring false accusations should know they will be named and potentially prosecuted.
Above all, police bail must be reformed. At present bail can be renewed indefinitely, giving police scant incentive to press ahead with legitimate investigations and drop those for which they have no evidence. Before the election the home secretary proposed limiting police bail to 28 days, renewable only with the approval of a senior officer. After three months it would have to be a judge. This proposal was in the Queen’s Speech but is not yet law. Even in an age of complex cross-border cybercrime, justice delayed is justice denied.
One of the heavyweights of the manosphere – Rollo Tomassi (the rational male) – weighs in with his typically well thought out considerations on the anti-sexbot campagin.
The mainstream loves a salacious story about the sexual misconducts of men. With the recent Ashley Madison data leak the narrative was one of blaming and shaming the overwhelming majority of men who signed up for an account to cheat in their spouses. This has resulted in more than one suicide. A topic of the Man in Demand Q&A session I fielded was how the Red Pill lens isn’t limited to just scoffing at the Blue Pill in popular media, but that it also gives men a sensitivity and awareness to better understand the motivations for social narratives like this.
Red Pill aware men understand that if there is an opportunity to cast blame or doubt on a man over his sexual impulse, or the consequences for allowing it to lead to behavior that conflicts with a feminine-primary social order, shaming will always be the go-to, socially acceptable strategy. Sex will always be a clichéd thumbscrew to gauge men’s personal resolve, and this is a built-in failsafe of control for the Blue Pill’s conditioning of men.
A new study out of the University of California Los Angeles suggests porn addiction does not exist.
Researchers found that people who said they had trouble controlling their consumption of pornography did not show a typical addiction response to sexual images. With addiction, increased brain activity is expected in response to relevant stimuli—heroin in the case of a drug addict, for example. But the porn study’s participants showed decreased brain activity in response to pornography, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Biological Psychology.
The decreased brain activity could be a result of habituation to sexual images, but that’s a phenomenon not typically seen with addiction.
“This finding is important, because it shows a reversal of a part of the brain response that has been consistently documented in other substance addictions and gambling disorder,” said researcher Nicole Prause. This builds on a previous study conducted by the same researchers in which they found no connection between the extent of participants’ pornography problems and their brain responses to sexual images.
Erik Billing is the Swedish mangina who is working with the feminist Dr Kathleen Richardson in campaigning for research into sexbots to be made illegal. The two ‘academics’ operate an official website for their campaign. It appears that it was Richardson who first had the idea for the campaign against sexbots, and thus far, has only managed to persuade one other ‘robot ethics expert’ to come on board – Erik Billing.
Erik Billing is Senior Lecturer in Informatics at the University of Skövde in Sweden. The university does not appear in most global rankings, but according to one site it is ranked 1955th in the world. De Montfort University, the British former polytechnic that Kathleen Richardson is employed at as a’robot ethics professor’, is ranked at 861 by the same website. Global media, from the BBC to the New York Times, have universally described these two individuals as ‘experts’ who are ‘warning of the dangers of sexbots’.
According to Erik Billing’s academic profile, part of his EU funded work includes researching robotics and A.I. as therapeutic tools for children with autism. It is unclear how he squares this with campaigning for these children to be criminalized as sex offenders when they grow up into incel adults desperate to seek solace and affection in the arms of a realistic humanoid robot.
Dr Kathleen Richardson, who wants to put men who use sexbots, or indeed any ‘intelligent’ male sex toys, in prison as sex offenders, gives an insight into her motivation by appearing to admit that her interest in ‘robot ethics’ stems from her lack of success with men (from 1:25 mark).
If she’s having trouble attracting men now (and to be frank, it’s not hard to see why) then it must be clear to her that it’s game over when the teen sexbots arrive in a few years time.
What kind of a woman wishes to use government force to incarcerate men (likely to be anally raped by other ‘sex offenders’) for not choosing her as a sexual partner?