Well, would you take a look at this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335986790_Designing_Virtuous_Sex_Robots .
In yet another preposterous think-piece, this time delivered as a serious and ever so scientific (scouts honour!) research-thingamajigger, amongst a barrage of similar think-pieces, designed to make you stop thinking… the ever-present terror and dread of the potential sex bot takeover in the future is made manifest. Skynet is looming on the horizon. Or Blownet… Sucknet… Hoenet… Fishnet…
Though I will have to admit that it is a bit more creative this time around in its ponderous vulture-morality ways, vices and virtues.
Presenting the obvious solution to the difficult moral, ethical and legal question that none but the terribly trembling forces that be thought to ask.
Which is, obviously: if one fucks an actual object… is this then rape of a bought-and-sold actual object? And how could we possibly make it so that any one man who owns such an object is viewed in the worst possible light?
By presenting masturbating with a sex toy as rape.
We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, moving on from this, it has to be presented as something carrying with it deeply ambiguous and dangerous patterns of behaviour… and words… and dirty deeds done in the dark.
The sex-bot uprising is right around the corner… if we do not treat the sex-bots, whose sole purpose is to serve as a sex-toy, a masturbatory aid, a release for pent up sexual urges that would otherwise be released through a flick of the wrist… if we do not treat these solitary sexual toys with dignity and with respect, who knows what terrible deeds these men may do when the doll no longer serves its main function?
Oh, the horror.
And with Halloween right around the corner…
Oh, the double horror!
And won’t somebody please think of the children?
The solution is simple – to the point of mental degradation. Make it so that the sex-bots have to give consent to sex. That is, to fulfil the one and only purpose for which they are built. After all, one would not wish any harm inflicted upon the silicone parts or moving mechanical magic, now would one? Certainly, clearly and obviously, there is an AI personality nesting within the matrix of the robotic pump-and-dump-dream. And any machine that exist with an ability to perform any task must be treated as though it were a human being. So one has to ask for consent before fucking the object that is nothing but an object bought for fucking.
This makes no sense.
Who, in their right mind, would pay for that? If one pays good money for a fuck-toy, one would imagine the fuck-toy to be beholden to the whim of its owner. Because it is a toy. A doll. A robot. Not a human being that has to give consent. And, believe it or not, most men are not so stupid as to not know the difference between a toy and a human being. Apparently, quite a few feminists are too stupid to do that, but that ought to surprise no-one.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I always ask my computer if it is fine with me turning it on. After all, if it is not turned on, I can not do anything with it, now can I?
And rightly so.
If the computer is turned off, the computer has to be turned off. It is the God-given right of any piece of computer-equipment to do just that. If there is no consent given, I can not have my way with it.
Usually, I have to woo it with dinner, promises of more RAM and a diamond-encrusted processor before it gets turned on. This tactic works, as one would expect, though it does get a bit expensive after a while.
Which is why I tend to keep it turned on after first getting its consent to turn it on. Admittedly, this makes it a bit sluggish at times, but that is just the way it’ll have to be. I am not made of money. And the computer was god-damned aware of this before it moved in with me.
My dishwasher, on the other hand… that one is particularly tricky to get any manner of consent from. Not that this matters much, and I will not get sidetracked into explaining how I woo that pesky and feisty little thing. Some things a man just have to keep private, personal and secret. Rest assured, however, that my dishwasher has yet to refuse consent.
I can poke fun all day long.
We all can, may, should, would and god-damned ought to.
The “Clown World” meme became a meme for a reason. And this is one of those reasons.
Bloody, god-damned, fucking Honk.
It is ridiculous, preposterous, and a wee bit frightening.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why all these articles… why all this sudden concern about the ethics of sex-bots? I believe it is incredibly simple.
Women are now, and have always been, the gatekeepers of sex.
This is not strange, given that they carry the burden of pregnancy.
Even with all these new and fancy genders they keep telling me about muddying the waters some… It is still women that get pregnant. Despite men having periods now, and men being pregnant now and… fuck, I keep getting lost in all the new rules. Given time, I suppose I will learn these new rules and laws of gender, sex and sexuality. I will have to learn through being made subject to re-education, I guess.
Biologically speaking, it really is no wonder that women are the gatekeepers of sex. Of course, given our modern marvellous magic of medicine, our various birth-controls and prophylactics, nature is taken out of the equation at a superficial level. We can over-ride this on a conscious level.
On a subconscious, on a primal, primate, reptile-brain level, however… I don’t think it is all that easy. Mate-selection and sexual gatekeeping is still present. Very much so. And these sex-bots remove quite a lot of power from women in that regard.
Though I doubt all that many men will prefer the sex-bots to a real woman, it still puts some pressure on women to perform better than they currently do in the dating game, the social game and the sexual game in order to land a partner. Suddenly, they may need to do more than just show up and show a bit of cleavage. Thus, these sex-bots are perceived as a threat to women’s sexual power. And that sexual power is real power. For men are thirsty beings. One of our greatest flaws, I think, is our tendencies to think with Dick Hardy, opening ourselves up very easily to become Hardly Dick later on down the line.
So they – feminists in particular – have to paint this in terrible ways, to discourage sex-bots and – ultimately – banish them by law, if need be. For all the horrible men and all their sex-toys do nothing but objectify women and trivialize rape. Because of course they do. Male sexuality is something to be afraid of, after all. This is old knowledge. Nothing new. Fear the hard-on. For it is an implement of rape, doom, wanton destruction and pant-splitting terror.
The simple fact that all god-damned stores that sell sex-toys for the curious, for the more libertine of our ladies and gentlemen are filled to the brim with all manner of doo-hickeyes; gizmos, penetrative plastic, mechanical contraptions, buzzing, grinding, pounding, pulsating, thrusting, blinking, singing, poetry-reading, coffee-making miniature marvels of engineering solely for the sexual pleasure of women are of no consequence.
If one is lucky, one may find a Fleshlight hidden away in a corner for the guy, and a modest selection of pornographic movies. Otherwise, the sexual machinery in the stores are there for women. And the stores mainly employ women. A man that buys a sex-toy is a virgin incel neckbeard loser and must be shunned and ridiculed. A woman that buys a sex-toy is sexually liberated and must be celebrated. Such is the view of things. For a man is judged on whether or not he can land a partner. If he is forced to use his hand, or any other implement to simulate sex, he is a loser. And is as such worthy of our scorn, our rage, our ridicule… and our fear.
Yet, what is a dildo but an object meant to replicate a severed penis? Following the logic of the troglodytes writing these blubber-mouthed articles of woe and petulant worry where sex bots are concerned, I would dare say that a severed penis is a far worse case of objectification than a whole replica of a human being… reducing men to nothing but their genitalia? What a horrible thing to do. Not to mention the unreasonable and highly unobtainable standards dildos set in regards to length, girth, expected stamina and so-and-such. Also: these dildos can not possibly consent. Which only worsens things, rendering every woman who has ever employed the use of a dildo – or a vibrator – a sex-crazed lunatic, bursting at the seams with rape, plunder and sexual entitlement galore.
Surely, they are in desperate need of consent-courses, considering how long they have been free to celebrate their use of dildos and various other mechanical contraptions to simulate the presence of a man… reducing men to nothing but their genitalia – or tongues, in some cases – in the process.
Considering that there have been similar articles of woe and worry floating around in regards to fleshlights and other such silicone replications of various parts of women, I do not think I am reaching here.
This is employing their own logic. If it sounds stupid where dildos are concerned, it is stupid the other way around. At the end of the day, it is masturbation. Not a relationship. Quick release. Not a relationship.
It is, as are all things when it comes to this, a case of double standards. And had feminism not held double standards, they would have no standards at all. Teach women not to rape their dildos. #DildosCannotConsent.
To be clear; I have absolutely no problems with women using sex toys. I do not feel threatened by it. I also have no problems with men using sex toys. Nor should anyone. Yet, women appear threatened by it. #FragileFemininity, then, when, and is it about bloody time? This is attempted control of sexuality. Control of the sexuality of men. Not only that… it is attempted control of sexual fantasies. I think one could argue that circumcision is attempted control of male sexuality as well. But that is another case altogether.
Sex-bots are just that – sex-bots. Robotics meant to simulate a sexual experience. It is not so much objectifying a human as it is humanizing an object. The only threat – the only fear – the only terror is that it may remove some sexual power from women. To claim that usage of sex-bots will normalize rape and as such suddenly increase the amount of rape happening around the western world is ridiculous. It is emotional argumentation; an appeal to affect employed by feminism… Emotional manipulation to get their way, as is their tactic… won’t somebody please think of the children… and the women…
It is the same argument used in regards to violent video games, in regards to rock’n’roll, in regards to heavy metal, in regards to dangerous literature… I fail to see any difference between this and the people who wanted to ban Harry bloody Potter for promoting witchcraft. Woe onto the state of the world.
Howling at a Slutwalk Moon, a collection of previous blog posts:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop