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.
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?
And so it begins. Dr Kathleen Richardson, a feminist academic working at De Montfort University in Leicester, has launched a campaign to outlaw the development of robots for sexual purposes.
A campaign has been launched calling for a ban on the development of robots that can be used for sex.
Such a use of the technology is unnecessary and undesirable, said campaign leader Dr Kathleen Richardson.
Sex dolls already on the market are becoming more sophisticated and some are now hoping to build artificial intelligence into their products.
Those working in the field say that there is a need for such robots.
Dr Richardson, a robot ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester, wants to raise awareness of the issue and persuade those developing sex robots to rethink how their technology is used.
“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on – how they will look, what roles they would play – are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.
She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.
“We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women,” she said
It is not known whether ‘smart’ vibrators, and other automated ‘intelligent’ sex toys for women will be outlawed under Dr Richardson’s proposals, or if the plans just extend to sex toys designed for men.
For further details of Dr Richardson’s plan to outlaw sexbots, she can be contacted at : firstname.lastname@example.org
Our friend Hank Pellissier recently contacted me regarding a possible interview that would be published at the IEET. Unfortunately, that wasn’t possible (permissible), but I answered his questions via e-mail anyway, and the results have been published at what appears to be one of the few transhumanist sites that aren’t 100% for the eradication of the male gender.
In terms of emerging technology – do you think sexbots will replace women, for many men? what about sexbots replacing men for women?
Sexbots are seen largely as a symbolic representation of the idea that technology may one day free men from their sexual dependence upon women. Personally, I think that the technology required for autonomous artificially intelligent sexbots to satisfy the psychological sexual needs of either men or women are decades away. Transhumanism itself is likely a safer bet for creating the ‘ideal’ sexual partner. Much of our discontent is rooted in the mal-adaptive and conflicting sexual psychologies that we still carry around with us – from male slut shaming of women in an age of contraception, abortion, and paternity testing, to the selfish female desire for monogamy and commitment in a partner (not likely to be conducive to happiness when sex becomes completely divorced from reproduction, when few people have children, and we are all living to be 1,000).
As far as physical technologies are concerned, much more exciting and immediate than sexbots are the roles that telepresence, augmented reality, and 3D printing will enable both men and women to benefit from the free sexual market. 3D printing will allow the cheap and easy production of realistic sex dolls that can be life-like replicas of anybody on Earth (or a fantasy ideal figure). Although this may sound disturbing and selfish, its real value will be when conjoined with tele-presence technology (in a sense, sex bots controlled remotely for virtual sex). ‘Sex bots’ will not replace men or women, but will instead be used to enrich the sex lives between men and women. Older women (and men) will be able to enjoy sex in the bodies of their youthful selves again, or in any kind of ‘improved’ or fantasy body that they wish. In addition, and probably much sooner than that, augmented reality glasses or contact lenses will allow a similar effect – your lover will see you as however you (or he/she) wishes you to appear. This will likely happen within the next 5-10 years. Finally, rejuvenation therapies will eventually mean that men and women can physically return to their younger selves, whilst bioprinting and cosmetic surgery could mean women literally changing their faces almost as easily as changing hairstyle. Ultimately, technology could even lead to individuals routinely swapping gender, or the very idea of gender itself becoming meaningless.
If my interpretation of feminism is correct – which I call ‘sexual trade union theory’ – then the forces driving feminism that are resulting in inequalities and unhappiness for both men and women, will largely disappear in the coming decades. Feminism has been the history of women trying vainly to close the free sexual market that disadvantages them as accelerating technological progess continues to open it at a faster rate. Quite soon, technology will actually come to women’s aid in this regard, and we will reach a kind of ‘sexual singularity’, in which the very notion of sexual competition – the cause of feminism as a sexual trade union – becomes meaningless. The criminalisation of male sexuality, and the unhappiness of women, will be over.
But before the femi-beasts drive you to hack your own penis off in shame at its inherent evil and through fear at the possible trouble it might land you in, perhaps you would do better to give it a pep talk. You could do worse than start by reading it aloud passages from the following intriguing book : ‘The Erotic Engine’ : How Porn Powers Progress’ written by a Mr Patchen Barss. In the book (which I haven’t yet read), Barss claims that porn has pretty much driven forward everything since the days of erotic cave paintings and crude fertility carvings to VHS and the Internet.
This all seems quite reasonable to me. I’ve been reading a lot on Futurism and the Singularity lately. Although the notion of a looming technological Singularity seems to me questionable, it does encapsulate a far more undeniable truth – that we are on the brink of technological advances that will transform society and our apparent control over nature. I say apparent, because whether or not the human being, or whatever post-human being that emerges in the next couple of centuries, is or can ever be separate from nature (a condition of being able to truly ‘control nature’ and certainly to ‘control evolution’) is a deep philosophical question. John Gray, an English philosopher usually left out of these discussions, has penned by far and away the most persuasive case that the idea of the human animal ever taking control of its own evolution is inherently absurd.
But there is one element in this fascinating debate that Singularitarians, Transhumanists, and their sceptics such as Gray, can often all agree upon. And this is that the Singularity (and astonishing future technological progress in general) will likely be driven by basic needs and desires that we have had in common with other primates since we shared an ancestor with the chimpanzee. In particular, fucking and fighting.
There is a plausible case to be made that if the Singularity does indeed take place, it is likely to occur in some top secret Pentagon, or perhaps Chinese, military research facility.
And that should be a prospect enough to chill anybody.
But there is a happier alternative. That our desire for sex, in particular the relatively simple male need for visual and tactile satisfaction of his sexual needs, is what gives rise to the Singularity, or at least A.I. and related technologies. We’re already seeing a glimpse of this in the progress towards humanoid robots that you would want to interact with, as well as in the field of telepresence (of which teledildonics is the sexual form -see the RealTouch).
As the saying goes – ‘Make Love, Not War’.
It’s also another reason, the ultimate reason, to oppose the sexual trade union’s war against male sexuality. The future of humanity, or at least the speed and moral outcome of technological progress, could well depend upon it.
Stem Cell therapy promises to be a medicinal ‘magic bullet’ for just about…everything. From restoring sight in blind people, to replacing cancerous or worn out organs with healthy new ones that have been grown to order.
And it appears that the evil male objectification of female boobies might enable it all to happen, or at least to get there a lot faster :
It makes sense to apply Cytori’s technology to enhance breasts instead of, say, repair urinary sphincters as a strategic way to move the patented technology out of rats and into people as soon as possible. Hearts, kidneys, and even sphincters have to work in order for us to survive. But we can live just fine without breast tissue, and, outside of feeding offspring, breasts don’t have to do much. The fact is, the scientific and regulatory hurdles to getting Cytori’s cells into clinical use will be easier to clear for breasts than for other tissue: Breasts simply aren’t as necessary as other organs, so the bar for proving to regulators that the technology works will be lower.
It’s also a booming market. In 2009, women forked over $964 million to plastic surgeons for breast augmentation, which edges out nose jobs as the most commonly performed plastic surgery in the US.
Of course, sex doesn’t just drive technology, as we have seen with the contraceptive pill, technology drives sex – or at least the rules and ethics that accompany it. This week it was announced that a contraceptive cream that carries no apparent side-effects will soon be on the market and which will effectively replace the pill. What possible social effects might this have? And in the coming years there will be many such developments, far greater than this.
Highwayman posted the following typically intelligent observation of what a possible consequence might be :
I remember reading some articles about The Pill that stated that usage of the pill had a tendency to alter women’s sexual preferences in men. If this is proven to be true I wonder if this might be a factor in our current high divorce rates (women make choices in men while their preferences are altered by the pill…then when they eventually stop using the pill and return to their normal preferences they loose interest in their mates). If this new cream were to not have this alleged side-effect then I wonder if it would mean more stable long term relationships (for those that prefer to pursue them).
The good doctor comes out with far more feminist nonsense than she customarily does here. Nonetheless, anything that Helen Fisher writes about on sex is always worth reading, and her piece neatly rounds off the theme of this post.
Marriage has changed more in the past 100 years than it has in the past 10,000, and it could change more in the next 20 years than in the last 100. We are rapidly shedding traditions that emerged with the Agricultural Revolution and returning to patterns of sex, romance, and attachment that evolved on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago.
Let’s look at virginity at marriage, arranged marriages, the concept that men should be the sole family breadwinners, the credo that a woman’s place is in the home, the double standard for adultery, and the concepts of “honor thy husband” and “til death do us part.” These beliefs are vanishing. Instead, children are expressing their sexuality. “Hooking up” (the new term for a one-night stand) is becoming commonplace, along with living together, bearing children out of wedlock, women-headed households, interracial marriages, homosexual weddings, commuter marriages between individuals who live apart, childless marriages, betrothals between older women and younger men, and small families.
Our concept of infidelity is changing. Some married couples agree to have brief sexual encounters when they travel separately; others sustain long-term adulterous relationships with the approval of a spouse. Even our concept of divorce is shifting. Divorce used to be considered a sign of failure; today it is often deemed the first step toward true happiness.
These trends aren’t new. Anthropologists have many clues to life among our forebears; the dead do speak. A million years ago, children were most likely experimenting with sex and love by age six. Teens lived together, in relationships known as “trial marriages.” Men and women chose their partners for themselves. Many were unfaithful—a propensity common in all 42 extant cultures I have examined. When our forebears found themselves in an unhappy partnership, these ancients walked out. A million years ago, anthropologists suspect, most men and women had two or three long-term partners across their lifetimes. All these primordial habits are returning….
A brilliant comment by Snark spotted at (the-spearhead) – on ‘Gynocentrism Theory’
Women who are not feminists are not feminists because they do not need to be; i.e. they do not lack the power over men which they covet.
Hence, among the younger women, it is usually neurotic and/or ugly women who tend to be feminists; and women tend to become feminists once they are older, i.e. they have passed their Wile E. Coyote moment; their power in all these cases is threatened because they lack the physical attractiveness required to control men. Hence they seek it in other ways (affirmative action, penal, etc.) and are as motivated by vindictive rage (perhaps stemming from self-hate at the realisation of no longer being ‘worthy’ enough to control men through their own assets) as by self-gain. On older women seeking to disempower younger women’s use of said assets, see http://www.theantifeminist.com/
BUT, back to the women who control men but are NOT nominally feminists. I.e. young, attractive women.
There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men.
Gynocentrism Theory teaches us that even when those individuals in powerful roles are mostly men, they are doing the bidding of women, not of men en masse; thus the lie is given to Patriarchy Theory, which suggests ridiculously that the few men in power stick up for all the ‘little guys’ out there, against the interests of women.
Gynocentrism Theory then tells us what women – either the non-feminists who sexually control men, or successful feminists – actually do with this power over men. They get men to fight each other. They create conflict between men where there is and should be no conflict. Why? To determine the stronger, of course. It’s the cause of primitivism at the pinnacle of civilisation and it’s why we have so many of the enduring social problems we still struggle with.
Men aren’t naturally violent or aggressive; they simply have the potential to be these things. It is the fact that women reward with sex those who prove themselves to be the most violent and aggressive which makes men act violently and aggressively.
The price of a woman’s titillation is an innocent man getting his head smashed in as he walks home. This, just so that the perpetrator can be sexually selected. Woman’s role in the crime is concealed; she didn’t perform the act, after all; she only manipulated the man’s natural stimulus and response system to get him to perform a violent display for her sexual benefit.
On the other hand, the women with power which is not sexual – i.e., older feminists – motivated by the same basic psychosexual forces but unable to manipulate men any longer using their bodies, having faced years or decades of internal torment from the aforementioned rejection and self-hate, engage in a whole different kind of manipulation. That is, exponentially increasing penalisation for masculinity and maleness itself.
The outcome of all this is that men today are being ground between two millstones: on the one hand, non-feminist women demand that men must act aggressively and violently if they are to be sexually selected; on the other, their feminist sisters demand increasingly brutal punishments for men who act precisely in this way.
Further: today we are subject to the new phenomena ambient porn, that is, the promise of sexual rewards from desirable young women at every turn. Women who decry pornography do so while dolled up to look like porn stars themselves, and don’t you dare criticise them for it. There is no escaping the pink wurlitzer: male sexuality is provoked everywhere you look, whether in images from your TV screen, or in magazines, adverts at bus stops, billboards, and more pervasively and perversely than all of this, in the flesh, walking around absolutely everywhere from your home to the local store to the place you work. Just think about how standards of decency have changed throughout the last hundred years and you’ll realise that we really are living through a previously untested social experiment – we are oversaturated with female flesh to the point that it’s surprising a man can find the time to think straight outside of his ‘cave’. To reiterate, our sexuality is being forever provoked, taunted, prodded at. All to ensure that we react in that ‘real manly’ way that the young non-feminist women demand, so that we can promptly be caught and brutalised by white knights employed by institutions controlled and run by or for the benefit of feminist women.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem, and although I am generally uncomfortable with ideas of historical inevitability, this was all quite possibly set in stone from the moment women were granted the vote. This is, unquestionably, the tyranny of the majority that De Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill warned us of. Men are the 49% minority, and women are the 51% majority, empowered by democracy to abuse us as they will.
Extract from another essential anti-feminist piece by Human-Stupidity :
It does not matter if your prospective parter looks like 70 years old, s/he could suffer from Progeria, which makes 7 year olds look like 70. The disease is admittedly rare, but do you want to go to jail for 20 years and get special attention because you are labelled a “child rapist”?
4) Verify the ID for authenticity
The ID could be fake. So check the ID for authenticity.
No matter how well you checked, how well she falsified her ID, this will not keep you out of jail. This should be known since the times of Tracy Lords
5) Make sure the ID does not belong to someone else.
The ID could be authentic. But it could belong to another person. So check the photo, compare it to the person. If there is a signature, have the person sign a piece of paper. Get a graphotechnical (handwriting expert) analysis to assure the signature in the ID matches the signature in the ID. If there are fingerprint and other features, have an expert check this.
6) Hire a detective to run a background check, to independently to confirm all data on ID, to make sure she is off age and really over the age of consent
Even if s/he has a government emitted ID, if she deceived or bribed government officials to give her a false ID, that is no excuse.
So the detective, ideally, should check out the family, school records, birth certificate, verify records at her birth clinic. Ideally he should run a DNA test to make sure there is no stolen identity.
Human-Stupidity is a rare MRA who understands that feminist generated paedohysteria is as much about middle-aged women stopping men having sex with 20 year olds (for fear that they might turn out to be underage) as it has to do with stopping sex with 15 year olds (and nothing at all about stopping genuine perverts having sex with pre-pubescent children).
Promptly added to my list of essential anti-feminist aticles (see sidebar on the right). As has been Roissy’s classic 2007 article on sexbots and the future of the sex market. (I honestly only became aware of Roissy and his brilliant article this year. Likewise with the brilliant Anti-Feminist Tech, who also writes about the impact that sexbots and other future sex tech will have on the balance of power between the sexes).
There is only one hope for men’s rights, as I have stated here often. That technology makes the sexual trade union redundant or impotent. Ironically, the fact that the single invention of the contraceptive pill has had such a blind and uncontrollable effect upon society and the relationship between the sexes (i.e. the free sexual market and second wave feminism), is our most inspiring piece of evidence that this hope is not futile.
….a recent study in the journal Brain Research comparing the brains of women on birth control pills with brains of other women and men. When the study’s authors examined high-resolution images of participants’ brains, they found the women on hormones showed more matter in some areas of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with cognitive activities like decision-making.
The Brain Research study prompted breathless news reports suggesting that the pill makes you smarter. But Kinsley and Meyer point out that the brain works like a “neural beehive,” and disturbing one part of the hive could impact the other. The fact that one brain region becomes larger than the next does not mean a woman on hormones is more intelligent or effective. It is also possible that her brain is going haywire. (Kinsley and Meyer actually use the word “catawampus.”)
As other MRAs have noted, girls don’t really mature much past the age of puberty. Or in the words of Schopenhauer :
Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’
Earlier this year an American company announced the creation of the world’s first sexbot. Roxxxy TrueCompanion attracted the attention of the world’s media but seemed a rather primitive, if historic, first step on the road to fully fledged robots you’d actually want to have sex with. Now, however, the creators of Roxxxy have announced a new and improved version. The groundbreaking sexbot has been given a prettier face, improved A.I capabilities, as well as a degree of movement, as the following video amply demonstrates :
Just how have we, as men, arrived at the grim situation I described in yesterday’s post? A world in which young white boys, filled by feelings of sexual inadequacy, kill themselves because they have the wrong colour penis. Boys who are crucified by feminists for making teenage girls feel inadequate through ‘idealizing’ the diminishing number of the female sex who aren’t grotesquely and dangerously obese. Those same boys who grow up into a world in which by the time they are 18 or 19 will begin to fear being socially and legally lynched as the worst subhuman perverts imaginable if they continue to pursue, or even look at, females of peak sexual attractiveness, i.e. young girls. A perverted gynocracy in which men are so castrated, that to even admit that girls 5 0r 6 years post-pubescent are attractive is to risk the ultimate in shaming language – and not just from women, but from fellow men…even ‘men’s rights activists’. LOL! Meanwhile, boys as young as 12 consume steroids and join violent gangs in order to live up to the grotesque conception of masculinity demanded by the young urban white female. And whilst men increasingly go to jail if they pay for sex, or even click on a mouse to view a forbidden cartoon image, tens of thousands of wealthy European women flock to the Carribean each summer to spend their grotesquely inflated divorce payouts in ‘hunting the big bamboos’ of illiterate, drug addled, poverty stricken rastafarians with average IQs of 75 (the same mental age as the average middle-class European 12 year old girl).
The only immediate and obvious answers, it seems to me, lie in evolutionary psychology. I don’t need to invoke ‘cultural marxism’ for an explanation as to why 99% of the ways feminists screw men over happen to perfectly coincide with the reproductive needs of a heavy parental investment female simian in a free sexual ‘jungle’. I turn to evolutionary psychology.
And this is exactly what the excellent Human-Stupidity.com has done with his analysis of how feminists have used their evolutionary sharpened verbal, gossip, and social manipulation skills to simply annihilate men and our sexuality in the 21st century sex war. A war in which only one side has thus far turned up to fight.
In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race. (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks. Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring). In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons
economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.
So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?
Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).
Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills. They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.
Women would have to manipulate especially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.
So the historical stone age balance of power is:
men have economical and physical superiority,
women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power…
Although I have near completely given up on the men’s rights movement over the last few months, and any belief that it might become anything more than a tiny irritation upon the wrinkled skin of feminism, I still cling to the hope that the ever accelerating rate of technological change might eventually render the sex war meaningless. I don’t think feminists can ever be defeated. When you understand what feminism is, to believe that it can be is as silly as believing you can ‘defeat’ life itself. The hope must be to somehow render feminism irrelevant for women, and in a way that is positive and fair to all men.
It’s a hope, but I don’t think a very great one. Perhaps in 30 years time even feminists will be so happy, waking up each morning and being fucked by their king kong sex robots with their 20″ power drill black penises, that they won’t care if millions of men are doing similar with their perfect nubile 16 year old Anna Kournikova silicone replicants. Unfortunately, women aren’t psychologically satisfied by the satiation of their physical sexual needs in the way that men can be. They will still feel ‘threatened’ and insecure by the ready availability to men of female beauty and youth. They will still want to take a legal hammer to those Anna sex bots, no matter how many electric black cocks they themselves are being happily serviced by.