I'd take her outrage more seriously if she had also railed against dildos, vibrators, and all women who fail to earn enough money on their own that they never let a man pay for anything

I spot a possible double standard. Women can build with silicone and get on TV and movies by appealing to men's need for gratification. But when men want to do their own design work, all of a sudden it's a problem.

Wait till we get a functional holodeck. Year is off by a bit, but still

http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-10-14

Hmmm, perhaps she is jealous because the guys prefer a robot over her?

Is there any area of men's lives that women don't feel entitled to invade? Try this: mind your own business.

"perhaps she is jealous because the guys prefer a robot over her"

Ultimately, this is the thing that seems to underlie a lot of women's behaviors in relation to other women. It's mate competition.

It isn't a double standard Canvasback. She just doesn't want men to have a cheaper option than her.

See the movie A.I.: Jude Law as "Joe", a male sexbot sent on a run for his life by a jealous man who couldn't stand that his girl preferred Joe to him.

"Hey, Joe, whattaya know?"

What happens when a woman wants a bot-boy?

In spite of the difficulties I have relating to the opposite sex, I would still ultimately prefer the company of a live woman to one of these droids.

Fuck automation.

from the August archives:
"... what the teacher said had "triggered" her such that she felt "unsafe" and that, in any case, he had no right to an opinion on the subject of abortion because he was a man."

Ah, I love it when SJWs GIVE me the answers. Obviously women have right to an opinion on the subject of sex robots for men because (cue music) they are not men.

I didn't even have to think (which is hard for men when it comes to sex).

More proof that a keyboard and an internet connection doth not a rational thinker make.

I probably mangled that sentence but only because you're prejudiced.

Hmm. There is clickbait on FB offering the work of a Japanese dollmaker building "underage" items, which RealDoll doesn't do. Outrage abounds, as the typical FB commenter doesn't seem to know about the Japanese animé doll fetish, or the other relatively lax Japanese sexual morés expressed by bestiality, etc., in some magazines commonly available.

Such a thing raises wonderful questions...

Is keeping a RealDoll a crime? Is cutting its head off? On YouTube? As an effigy?
How old must the RealDoll seem to be? (Ref: porn star Lupé Fuentes appeared in court to testify as to her real age, defending a man arrested for having a video depicting her apparently-preteen self. She was 19.)
If ten-year-old Sissy has a doll that appears to be her own age and she leaves the house, is Uncle Joe a pedophile for being alone in the house with it? If the answer is "no", how much of the doll has to be "correct" before this becomes "yes"?
If he takes a picture of the doll sitting on the sofa, clothed, is that "child porn" because it's not his kid? If not, does that change with a new pose or by removing a doll's clothing?

-----

About "dehumanizing": your humanity isn't changed by the things you use. It's illustrated. Some folk aren't going to like what they see, especially if it's themselves.

Feminist tears rain down upon us.

This doesn't present women in a favorable light. First, knowing full well that marriage is a trap where women, for no reason at all, can terminate a marriage, claim half his income, his home, his kids, his car, half his retirement, all his savings and investments, some men started adopting the MGTOW lifestyle.

Now, with these automated sex dolls, men have even less incentive to get married. And certain women (who probably had designs on the half-half-all-all-all deal from the very get go) are feeling more threatened than ever.

I'm still waiting for the day that they demand that laws be passed requiring men to marry them.

Patrick (above) wrote what I would have said.

The stated complaints about these bots are misdirection... for feminists, the real problem is that bicycles will need fish even less.

They're not any happier about the development of effective birth control for men. $$$$ from paternity fraud and spermrape will dry up.

It seems that this fulfills a real need.

I recently read that 80% of women bear children but only 40% of men have offspring. Yes, men can have sex without impregnating a women but it sounds like there are a lot of celibate men out there. I'm sure that many are not celibate by choice.

Of course the bots will all be recording everything and uploading it to the company servers for blackmail and/or coordination with Amazon's Consumer Products Targeted Suggestion spam initiative.

You think you're paranoid about clearing your browser history now? Just wait until the sexbots are recording everything and uploading it to the company servers for coordination with Amazon's Consumer Products Targeted Suggestion spam initiative.

arrgh I screwed up that comment.

Gog_: "arrgh I screwed up that comment."

Good point though.

They're not any happier about the development of effective birth control for men. $$$$ from paternity fraud and spermrape will dry up.

Lastango at March 5, 2017 2:24 AM
__________________________________________

So say SOME men, but more and more MRAs are admitting that it will likely take a generation or two after it arrives before we see real changes, if any, since too many men are just not interested enough to speak up (on TV, especially) and convince Big Pharma that there's a real market out there. Plus the fact that the only people who truly oppose access to male birth control are those who also oppose access to FEMALE birth control - and sterilization. I.e., religious conservatives. (When was the last time you heard of any feminist who seriously wanted to deprive single men of their right to get vasectomies?)

I predict:

1. That quite a few men will be sadly disappointed when they find that the women who currently insist on condom use will continue to do so. (Hint: Two months of dating do not a long-term relationship make, unless maybe you're willing to take a blood test or two - with HER doctor.)

2. That men in long-term relationships will continue to trust the women they're with. Usually for good reason.

3. That even rich male celebrities with lots of groupies will, as a rule, not run out to get the new methods, since, according to doctors, the average man doesn't want his genitals "messed with." (Plus, it's easy enough to prevent one's condoms from getting sabotaged - IF he cares enough. Rich celebs can afford a few kids, after all.) So most of the new consumers will be everyday married men whose wives beg them to use it.

4. That even groupies' lives will not change much even if #3 turns out to be wrong, since even groupies don't necessarily want to have babies right away with celebs they've just met (Chicago Bulls' Horace Grant, in Sports Illustrated, strongly implied just that, in 1991) - and even if they do, they can just shrug and move on to some other rich man who doesn't use protection.

5. That family court judges everywhere will lose what little sympathy they had for unmarried fathers who don't want to pay child support. (Which would explain why a few famous MRAs don't like to talk about male BC at all. Whereas if WOMEN don't talk about it much right now, it's because they don't expect men to use it without women's asking them to use it, for the reasons above. I happened to ask Roxane Gay - and she certainly didn't think it would turn a profit.)

Oh, re #3 -

I may have predicted, maybe 4-5 years ago, that we'd have Vasalgel by 2015. But, even though primate tests have been done (and those are clearly very expensive), it's been said recently that we shouldn't count on its arriving before 2020, since human trials are not expected to happen until 2018. The arrival date has been postponed again and again by the very people who had been promising its arrival.

My point is that, if rich celebs would be such a great market for it, why aren't they ALREADY funding the hell out of it to speed things up? Last I heard, it has no shortage of money problems.

"That's why I founded the Campaign Against Sex Robots"

THIS is why I want to move to L.A.
You just do not overhear such priceless gems around here. It reads like a novel.

Prediction #6:

So-called adult males who currently refuse to use condoms will refuse to use anything that involves a needle. So THEIR fatherhood rates will remain the same.

And, from last April:

http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a34621/male-contraception-vasalgel/

Excerpts:

...Practically as soon as the Pill hit the market in 1960, women's-rights activists started clamoring for a male alternative. "I think that I have not attended a single nonscientific meeting in the last two years at which the progress of contraceptive development was discussed that someone—usually a woman—has not asked: What about the men?" wrote Sheldon Segal, vice president of the Population Council, in a 1972 article called "Contraceptive Research: A Male Chauvinist Plot?"

More than 40 years later, the lament still resonates. While it may seem that there are new versions of the Pill or an IUD out every year, most are just adaptations of technologies from the 1960s and '70s. Contraceptive research and development—for both sexes—has been shrinking since the '80s, and for men it's practically nonexistent. Pharmaceutical companies that once worked on male birth control, such as the Dutch firm Organon and Germany's Schering, have pulled the plug on the ventures or have gone out of business altogether. The most important nonprofit in contraceptive development, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, isn't currently funding scientific inquiry into male methods, aside from variations on the condom. As for government funding, developed countries put only about $85 million annually into the "global contraceptive technology pipeline," according to a 2013 Guttmacher Institute report—just half of what's necessary to support projects already in the hopper, never mind new ones...

...Money is always an issue. (Elaine Lissner's) own foundation, Parsemus, has given several million dollars to the endeavor, and the David & Lucille Packard Foundation contributed $50,000. But to get the product in shape to go before the FDA, Lissner figures she'll need at least another $5 million. She's even tried to do a Kickstarter for Vasalgel, only to be told that her proposal was "too medical."...

(I mean - $5 million? Why can't 100 or so male celebs get together and cough up that small amount?)