Post: #51

(02-24-2019 06:12 PM)Sooth Wrote:  The fembot will have a refrigerated womb, so the dudes load is bagged and tagged, DHL is called and the cumshot is delivered to Stacies closest IVF center.

This is brilliant. The thought never occurred to me. Many guys already refer to women as cum dumpsters. Now these types of women have a practical use in the future.

But, if we ever get to this point, we'll probably have the tech to grow humans in the lab without the need of a mother. Women in the future will be disgusted by the thought of natural childbirth. They'll probably donate eggs yearly when they have their physical. The powers that be will connect the best sperm with the best eggs and genetically modify the embryos to rid them of any potential disease. "Parents" will become an antiquated term since the LGBTQ+ community already banned its use for not being inclusive in the early 2020's.

The blow to the male ego will be when DHL stops coming around for their collection.

Post: #52

(02-24-2019 03:32 PM)Aurini Wrote:  Replace "The sex instinct" (which as you point out is so primordial that some people fuck cars, and others fuck plants) with "Eros": erotic love. Romance. Intimacy.

[...]

We're already living in a (largely) post-eros world. Getting your nut is easy; game a chick, or download some porn. But finding erotic love with a modern woman?

Good fucking luck.

I think I'll be writing an article on this shortly. Some reflections on my recent ex connected some dots for me.

First thing that came to mind was PJW's video on love being a mental illness.





The missing ingredient with women for me is deep, meaningful friendship (a key component of "love" IMHO). The connection you have with true friends. Friends you would die for, as Seneca would like to say. What guys have with fuck buddies and even with their girlfriends and wives is very superficial and needs based. Few connect on a mental level, share similar worldviews, truly know each other inside and out and "get" each other (familiarity ≠ true intimacy). I can only think of one or two girlfriends I've ever had this kind of connection with.

In the age of AI, this shouldn't be an issue. Your virtual gf/assistant will easily be able to create intimacy by data mining your online activity and reviewing your past conversations with it. In that way, AI will give the impression of a deep connection, predict your responses, respond in a way that will please you, and use other psychological tricks to hook you. Addiction to this will be strong.

Post: #53

PJW is painting with too broad a brush.

What he calls love I would really classify as infatuation.

True love isn't possessive and it's something most people never attain.

The trick isn't to treat love as a disease, but rather the attachment aspect of love. As per existentialist thought, attachment is the main source of suffering. Trying to avoid feeling love is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We're not robots and should not aspire to become them.

Once you come around to accepting impermanence, then you can sort of love without attachment, or at least acknowledging the attachment impulse for what it is and letting it pass without wreaking havoc.

But show me relationship drama and I'll show you the problem of attachment, of trying to force something that can't and shouldn't be forced.

Post: #54

I don't go in for that.

Masculinity is dominance over the female herd members. It's ownership, benevolent hopefully, and attachment is an emotional investment in ownership. "Love" is what it took to convince a man to take on a sabre-tooth tiger rather than just outrunning the women and children.

One of the reasons that women will ghost on modern men for "no reason" is that the man has failed to make them feel owned. If you have no "attachment" then she will sense you have no true investment in her and will seek someone else "less enlightened" that her lizard brain trusts to protect her from sabre-toothed tigers.

My wife's opinions and state of mind have eventually become what I have molded them to be because she trusts in my ownership of her and that I'm "attached" to the idea of her continued survival and that of her children. For women nothing else really matters.

A man can seek enlightenment but if he tries to apply it to his relationships with women then he's destined for disappointment. They're not far removed in their lizard brains from the cave days. Keeping that in mind with all dealings with them will rarely serve you poorly.

Post: #55

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I don't go in for that.

Masculinity is dominance over the female herd members. It's ownership, benevolent hopefully, and attachment is an emotional investment in ownership. "Love" is what it took to convince a man to take on a sabre-tooth tiger rather than just outrunning the women and children.

One of the reasons that women will ghost on modern men for "no reason" is that the man has failed to make them feel owned. If you have no "attachment" then she will sense you have no true investment in her and will seek someone else "less enlightened" that her lizard brain trusts to protect her from sabre-toothed tigers.

My wife's opinions and state of mind have eventually become what I have molded them to be because she trusts in my ownership of her and that I'm "attached" to the idea of her continued survival and that of her children. For women nothing else really matters.

A man can seek enlightenment but if he tries to apply it to his relationships with women then he's destined for disappointment. They're not far removed in their lizard brains from the cave days. Keeping that in mind with all dealings with them will rarely serve you poorly.

Could you elaborate more on that please?

G

Post: #56

(02-22-2019 07:44 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  I will fuck that thing. I have no shame about it either- I have put my dick in crazy before, why not fuck a robot?

Because it's a white girl, right?

G

Post: #57

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I don't go in for that.

Masculinity is dominance over the female herd members. It's ownership, benevolent hopefully, and attachment is an emotional investment in ownership. "Love" is what it took to convince a man to take on a sabre-tooth tiger rather than just outrunning the women and children.

One of the reasons that women will ghost on modern men for "no reason" is that the man has failed to make them feel owned. If you have no "attachment" then she will sense you have no true investment in her and will seek someone else "less enlightened" that her lizard brain trusts to protect her from sabre-toothed tigers.

My wife's opinions and state of mind have eventually become what I have molded them to be because she trusts in my ownership of her and that I'm "attached" to the idea of her continued survival and that of her children. For women nothing else really matters.

A man can seek enlightenment but if he tries to apply it to his relationships with women then he's destined for disappointment. They're not far removed in their lizard brains from the cave days. Keeping that in mind with all dealings with them will rarely serve you poorly.

I get what you're saying. When I think back of times when I actually felt I was in "love," I see genuine friendship being the missing component. Being dominate and controlling is already in my nature. I'm at the point where hook-ups and casual short or long-term relationships are no longer really doing it for me. Women have always served a certain function for me. Sex and companionship, mainly (and still do). I agree, though, that true intimacy is lacking from relationships. You can't create a satisfying bond without it.

Female acquaintances I've had past relationships with often complain they can't find love, even though they put out and act the part of the good girlfriend. But none have ever claimed to be genuine friends with the men they desired. I always found that interesting. Because how can a man love you, if you're not at the very least friends/intimate? That's why I say modern relationships are superficial and needs based.

Post: #58

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  My wife

What I noticed a long time ago is that you subscribe to a thuggish philosophy of violence, threats of violence, and dominance being the solution to every problem. You're welcome to it, but don't expect everyone else to agree with it. I happen to think this sort of attitude tends to lead to "negative" outcomes in life if you know what I mean.

And with all due respect I have a hard time understanding why married men would want to hang out in a forum that is oriented around single life and gathering notches. If you're routinely gaming chicks and cheating on your wife then you have no right to school us on what constitutes ideal pair-bonding because that, frankly, ain't it. And if you think it does, then your hamster is bigger than any woman's hamster.

Lastly, each and every time female nature is brought up, you blame it on men. Each and every time. That is simply a lopsided assessment of the situation. I'm sorry to inform you that the solution to hypergamy is not keeping women shackled in chastity belts or whatever extreme measures might be your ideal. At some point you have to accept female nature for what it is and not keep blaming their behavior on men. Sure, put your best foot forward, but in the end it's better to go with the flow than it is trying to herd cats. Most women aren't worth the effort required to keep them around in the first place. If they leave it should be their loss anyway.

Post: #59

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Masculinity is dominance over the female herd members.

Leonard, I think what you are meaning to say is that masculinity is having the strength (whether that be physical or otherwise) to provide protection (not dominance) over the female "herd members"

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  she trusts in my ownership of her

I think you are just trolling with a comment like that.

Post: #60

(02-25-2019 01:51 AM)questor70 Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  My wife

What I noticed a long time ago is that you subscribe to a thuggish philosophy of violence, threats of violence, and dominance being the solution to every problem. You're welcome to it, but don't expect everyone else to agree with it. I happen to think this sort of attitude tends to lead to "negative" outcomes in life if you know what I mean.

And with all due respect I have a hard time understanding why married men would want to hang out in a forum that is oriented around single life and gathering notches. If you're routinely gaming chicks and cheating on your wife then you have no right to school us on what constitutes ideal pair-bonding because that, frankly, ain't it. And if you think it does, then your hamster is bigger than any woman's hamster.

Lastly, each and every time female nature is brought up, you blame it on men. Each and every time. That is simply a lopsided assessment of the situation. I'm sorry to inform you that the solution to hypergamy is not keeping women shackled in chastity belts or whatever extreme measures might be your ideal. At some point you have to accept female nature for what it is and not keep blaming their behavior on men. Sure, put your best foot forward, but in the end it's better to go with the flow than it is trying to herd cats. Most women aren't worth the effort required to keep them around in the first place. If they leave it should be their loss anyway.

Well since you seem to think that I'm cheating on my wife then you're clearly not paying much attention to what I actually post. There's not much point debating what you imagine. If you want to debate what I post then that's fine. Feel free to list your credentials on maintaining long term relationships or continue complaining about female behavior as if it will ever make a difference. You might as well be an incel male lion complaining that the females don't naturally sub-divide among the males.

Life isn't fair and natural urges among humans are either regulated by coercion or you get the jungle. Reality cares nothing about your complaints.

(02-25-2019 02:22 AM)Sgt Donger Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Masculinity is dominance over the female herd members.

Leonard, I think what you are meaning to say is that masculinity is having the strength (whether that be physical or otherwise) to provide protection (not dominance) over the female "herd members"

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  she trusts in my ownership of her

I think you are just trolling with a comment like that.

If your position is, for example, that if your daughter decided to breed with a drug addicted thief that you would simply stand by because "it's her right to choose" then your brand of masculinity is hovering somewhere around the 70's which led to the 80's which led to the 90's etc etc etc. The bedrock of civilisation is patriarchy and the bedrock of patriarchy is benevolent thuggery. That may rustle your jimmies but if you believe your hypothetical 16 year old daughter is her own woman who may make her own choices then you're not a patriarch, you're a cog in the assembly line for feminist failures. If you believe that your wife is a co-commander rather than your 2IC then she will trade you for someone who demotes her to 2IC. Women like to have their hair pulled and be spanked. It's not politically correct, it's nature. Choose one. Political correctness or nature.

It's irrelevant whether these concepts make you feel queasy or trigger your life long indoctrination. It was a tough slog for me to peel back the layers of my own brainwashing and I push on with that further and further every day. The bottom line is always the same, though. If it didn't work yesterday then it's not going to work today.

Guys can whine about female nature until the cows come home. We built a civilisation through thuggery. We refined civilisation to a point where the church and the state and our culture replaced thuggery, then we gave the church and the state and our culture over to the women and foreign tribes who wanted us dead. Reality is reality. The old levers of control are gone and we're all to blame. Shift down a couple of gears and get it done. Stay in 5th and it's only a matter of time before you stall. Then, you're going to end up all the way back in 1st, and you don't want to begin to imagine what that looks like.

(02-25-2019 01:08 AM)Avoy Wrote:  ...
Because how can a man love you, if you're not at the very least friends/intimate? That's why I say modern relationships are superficial and needs based.

How would a man love his children?

Who do we put in the life-rafts first?

Post: #61

He's right about ownership of her and the family, as well as her place being second in command as the wife. While I'm not married, being the dominate partner and leader in the relationship is the natural state of things. The girls here in SEA crave it. However, I need more than just a submissive woman who says yes, follows my lead, and looks after me if I'm feeling ill. This is basically a mutually beneficial arrangement, not anything meaningful between two souls. True intimacy is an intangible that you can only know when you've got it.

Post: #62

(02-24-2019 11:38 PM)Avoy Wrote:  ...
The missing ingredient with women for me is deep, meaningful friendship (a key component of "love" IMHO). The connection you have with true friends. Friends you would die for, as Seneca would like to say. What guys have with fuck buddies and even with their girlfriends and wives is very superficial and needs based. Few connect on a mental level, share similar worldviews, truly know each other inside and out and "get" each other (familiarity ≠ true intimacy). I can only think of one or two girlfriends I've ever had this kind of connection with.

In the age of AI, this shouldn't be an issue. Your virtual gf/assistant will easily be able to create intimacy by data mining your online activity and reviewing your past conversations with it. In that way, AI will give the impression of a deep connection, predict your responses, respond in a way that will please you, and use other psychological tricks to hook you. Addiction to this will be strong.

@TellYourSonThis
Feb 24

Quote:Women with weak men are frustrated, angry and combative.

Women with strong, righteous men are kind, vibrant, and feminine.

Women need men to be at their best.

You can tell a lot about a woman by her attitude.

If she's unpleasant, chances are she's not romantically fulfilled.

Post: #63

(02-25-2019 01:00 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 12:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  I don't go in for that.

Masculinity is dominance over the female herd members. It's ownership, benevolent hopefully, and attachment is an emotional investment in ownership. "Love" is what it took to convince a man to take on a sabre-tooth tiger rather than just outrunning the women and children.

One of the reasons that women will ghost on modern men for "no reason" is that the man has failed to make them feel owned. If you have no "attachment" then she will sense you have no true investment in her and will seek someone else "less enlightened" that her lizard brain trusts to protect her from sabre-toothed tigers.

My wife's opinions and state of mind have eventually become what I have molded them to be because she trusts in my ownership of her and that I'm "attached" to the idea of her continued survival and that of her children. For women nothing else really matters.

A man can seek enlightenment but if he tries to apply it to his relationships with women then he's destined for disappointment. They're not far removed in their lizard brains from the cave days. Keeping that in mind with all dealings with them will rarely serve you poorly.

Could you elaborate more on that please?

G

I'll try, but it strains at my desire for minimalism.

"Nice guys" often lament that women will dump them for no reason. Not just soyboys but often jacked guys with good looks and good prospects. "I treated her with dignity and respect and she dumped me for NO REASON. What is wrong with women?!"

Nothing is wrong with women, any more than men are defective because they only have two arms when they'd be better served with four. We are as nature makes us. The question inevitably becomes "why were my expectations foolish?"

When an engineer creates a device and it doesn't perform as planned does he complain that the laws of physics are unfair? No. He asks "why were my expectations foolish?" "What am I missing?" Expecting women to simply unfuck themselves is like me expecting my dogs to start behaving properly without ever having to discipline them. Ridiculous.

Women like all creatures of lesser intelligence are dominated more highly by their lizard brain and their body chemistry. That's why you can get a bang twice as easy when she's at peak fertility than a week later. More importantly for the long term it's why she'll pick a strong man on the basis that he looks strong but she will still sour to him if he later turns out to be a non-dominant "nice guy". That same girl will be slavishly loyal to a skinnier man who takes ownership of her and treats her as a possession. We recognize this in game, that muscles are not a panacea for maintaining female desire or even escalating to the point of getting the bang. Unfortunately men do not extrapolate this into a long term scenario. Most men here will never stop to think that the behavior which makes women wet must be maintained in the long run in order to keep her submissive. The moment they decide that their relationship with this woman is "long term" they suddenly think they can flip a switch to Brady Bunch mode and if she sours to them over time then it's not their fault for going soy, it's the woman's fault for "being uncivilized".

"My invention isn't working. The laws of physics are unfair!"

Since we have allowed the social levers used to control women to atrophy we are left with the brute realities of natural selection. It sucks but it's a reality. Because of this we must either learn to navigate the jungle or suffer the consequences.

To learn to navigate the jungle you must view women as animals, or mammals, or stone age primitives if you prefer. Then you must ask honestly what their prime directives in life are.

In my opinion their prime directives are status, safety, resources and strong progeny.

Next we need to avoid the mistake of misinterpreting what these things really are. For a primitive or an animal, a mate providing safety does not mean that she believes in her heart of hearts that he would never harm her. Safety does not mean "he's a really nice guy". For a primitive or an animal, safety means "I've got a male who has the balls and the brawn to fuck up anyone that threatens me or my spawn".

This is why women will stay with their abusers and even defend them against white knights that try to rescue them. As fucked up as it seems to civilised men, those women sense innately and subconsciously that the white knights will not have to balls to do what has to be done when a legitimate enemy tribe attempts to storm the village. The white knights will moan and screech about this but it's simple human/animal nature. They care more about their delusions than they care about the woman being abused, so they don't confront their delusions. They foster them and complain about the woman "being an idiot", just like a lax dog owner complains for the hundredth time that Fido dug his way out of the yard again. Dogs are gonna dog. Women are gonna women. The biggest problem is that men in the West aren't being men. They got used to having those social levers, but now that those social levers are gone they both refuse to win them back OR learn to live without them.

As for status and resources they're simple, but overrated against safety and strong progeny. Women with status and resources via their chosen man will still try to get pregnant to men who have that vital will to power. Their lizard brain sees the genetic capacity for violence as the ultimate trump card while resources and status are ever volatile. This is why murderers get so much female fan mail when they're in the slammer. Safety in the primitive sense is therefore tied to strong progeny because there's no point in having kids to a man if those kids don't genetically end up with the will to power. That will to power is what makes a 6ft tall scandanavian woman loyal to a 5'5" crooked-nosed dynamo who will throw down at the drop of a hat.

Thuggish? Doesn't matter. It's a fact of life.

We will win back the levers of social control or we will suffer the law of the jungle. I personally prefer Norman Rockwell's America and it's broader Western equivalents. I don't like thuggery, but reality doesn't care what I don't like so I adapt and overcome.

I've been married for over a decade now, and though I was blue-pill as fuck when I tied the knot (got lucky in a lot of regards) my marriage has only been strengthened day by day with my acceptance of primitive behavioral drivers and how to manage them, in dogs, children and women. Maybe once a year if I get into a slump my wife will decide to shit-test me at some point when I'm particularly irritable. I will lock eyes with her and ask "what the fuck did you just say to me?!"

No witty repartee's. No snappy faggot comebacks. Just pure animal "don't forget who the fucking man is, bitch."

And deep in her lizard brain she thinks "there he is, the guy I need when the enemy tribe comes over the hill". She becomes ultra-submissive for a couple of weeks. A lizard brain reward for providing the correct response.

Meanwhile modern politically correct soyfags would have already called the police if they witnessed it, and then wonder why they went home to find their wife fucking the poolboy.

It should go without saying (but doesn't) that some women are closer to the primitive than others but they all have it somewhere below the surface, just as all men do.

Believe me. "Neomasculinity" is just masculinity light. Your great grandfather would have laughed at what passes for "masculine" these days. If you asked your great, great grandfather and every man in your line going back to the stone age "is it OK to slap a ho" they would say "if you've got a good reason, obviously." If I suggested that here, even on an avowedly anti-feminist forum it would be grounds for a temp or permanent ban, and not necessarily because the mods disagreed. The reality is that even half the members on the forum would flip white-knight, and combined with the aggregate of soymales and feminists it would be a legitimate threat to the forum itself. What we get is the watered down version of patriarchy at best. If you want the real deal these days you have to ask Mohammed.

For guys willing to chase the truth no matter the consequences, it's unfortunate because once you start navigating the deeper waters then you become a stranger to the people splashing around on the shoreline. They consider themselves rugged but they recoil utterly at what their forefathers knew inherently. In the long line of patriarchy that brought us out of the caves this sissy abomination that we call masculinity in the last few generations is a mockery of what it once was. Some will find their way back. Others will sit around complaining about the natural order.

Adapt or suffer.

Sink or swim.

Post: #64

(02-23-2019 01:03 AM)Dirtyblueshirt Wrote:  Then take all of the above and put it into a synthetic body like this:


(credit to CynicalContrarian from the sexbot thread)

And its game over for a lot of women, especially the Amy Schumer and Meghan Trainor types.

In 10 years the above will look like a comically crude prototype, compared to what is coming. Imagine the change from brick 1990s cell phone to the newest Iphone.

How much would most men pay for unlimited sex on demand from the perfect robot girlfriend? I would honestly guess between $50,000 to $100,000, assuming financing was available.

The monthly payment would absolutely be worth it, too. Unlimited, super satisfying sex on demand. You'll never get tired of her, because you can simply change out to new parts any time you want. Want her to be the perfect sub, or dom? Order the fetish app.

Another idea- similar to how you can rent games or movies digitally now, why not rent a specific fantasy? For $4.99 she can be the girl next door, a slutty cheerleader, a horny housewife....anything you want.

Flesh n' blood women are screwed. Totally, monumentally, screwed.

That is, unless, they can survive based on their sparkling personalities...lol.

Post: #65

^^^^ So the same guy who claims that today's most advanced algorithms are barely capable of analyzing a still photo believes that in 10 years we'll have fully functional sex robots complete with such realistic AI, materials, locomotion, personalities and sexuality that no flesh and blood woman will be able to compete.

Right.

Post: #66

One thing that you can't get from a sexbot/VR girlfriend is the high of meeting a real woman, attracting her, seducing her, getting chosen by her over other men and then fucking her. But you only need to do that X amount of times before the high diminishes and eventually disappears almost completely.

Post: #67

(02-25-2019 03:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  ^^^^ So the same guy who claims that today's most advanced algorithms are barely capable of analyzing a still photo believes that in 10 years we'll have fully functional sex robots complete with such realistic AI, materials, locomotion, personalities and sexuality that no flesh and blood woman will be able to compete.

Right.

Yep.

The level of technological sophistication required for a machine to sexually satisfy men is wayyyy lower than discerning whether or not photos/comments violate abstract rules.

Think about some technologies that already exist, and mostly function well:

1) Motorized flesh lights
2) Auto pilot for cars, aka AI for complex machines
3) AI generated expressions, as seen before in this thread

You could already combine these things into a pretty decent sex bot, if you spent an additional couple million on R&D. Obviously the costs of mass production would bring the prices down to something with a monthly payment of like $750.

Compare to finding an AI that can:

1) Correctly identify the contents of a photo
2) Determine the social/legal significance of that contents to properly apply abstract rules, and forward edge cases to a human moderator

Post: #68

(02-25-2019 04:07 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  You could already combine these things into a pretty decent sex bot, if you spent an additional couple million on R&D. Obviously the costs of mass production would bring the prices down to something with a monthly payment of like $750.

Compare to finding an AI that can:

1) Correctly identify the contents of a photo
2) Determine the social/legal significance of that contents to properly apply abstract rules, and forward edge cases to a human moderator

There would be a black market for mod chips.

"DIY Saudi Arabian morality patch. Turn your fembot into the ideal woman"

Post: #69

(02-25-2019 04:07 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 03:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  ^^^^ So the same guy who claims that today's most advanced algorithms are barely capable of analyzing a still photo believes that in 10 years we'll have fully functional sex robots complete with such realistic AI, materials, locomotion, personalities and sexuality that no flesh and blood woman will be able to compete.

Right.

Yep.

The level of technological sophistication required for a machine to sexually satisfy men is wayyyy lower than discerning whether or not photos/comments violate abstract rules.

Think about some technologies that already exist, and mostly function well:

1) Motorized flesh lights
2) Auto pilot for cars, aka AI for complex machines
3) AI generated expressions, as seen before in this thread

You could already combine these things into a pretty decent sex bot, if you spent an additional couple million on R&D. Obviously the costs of mass production would bring the prices down to something with a monthly payment of like $750.

Compare to finding an AI that can:

1) Correctly identify the contents of a photo
2) Determine the social/legal significance of that contents to properly apply abstract rules, and forward edge cases to a human moderator

Hmmm. I don't think we'll have "locomotion" or true AI "personality" in 10 years. Making a robot that walks like a human being, for example, is so fantastically difficult and expensive that I doubt it's worth it.

But I think most men don't care if the sex bot is able to walk. Most men don't care if the sex bot is able to carry on a real conversation. they just want the motorized blowjob machine that we already can buy, implanted in a silicon doll, that we can already buy, with a sexy-looking gilr in the goggles, that we can already buy. All the pieces are already there.

The AR goggles are the key component actually because with them, you can superimpose a virtual girl, or maybe a webcam girl, over the blank face of the robot. Maybe the robot has a big QR code instead of a face. We won't need a motorized smiling mouth on our silicon doll. We just use AR to superimpose a digitally created face. Maybe we superimpose a real webcam girl...she moans and cries out your name and makes the doll thrust with a Xbox controller. Or maybe we put her in a VR suit and measure her movements.

Neal Stephenson wrote about this in Snow Crash -- how women would rent themselves out on an hourly basis to faceless men in hyper powerful webcam studios.

Post: #70

Just thinking... the sexiest and most desirable fembot depicted on screen to date was Kyoto from Ex Machina, not the lead character Ava (the self-empowered it girl). Kyoto was submissive, mute, sexually aware, and a decent dancer who sadly got infected by feminism in the end. She could have been a hero. Ava, very much like a modern woman, pretty much wanted to end all men -- oppressive or otherwise.

The last video is the actress who played Kyoto. I think I like her better mute.

Post: #71

(02-25-2019 05:54 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  But I think most men don't care if the sex bot is able to walk

There are both physical and emotional needs. When it comes to emotional, you'd be surprised how little physical presence is required. Her is sort of the flipside of Ex Machina in that respect. The lack of physicality does come into play in the film, but only after he develops a strong emotional bond.

While a simple sex doll might do the job, adding something that has some sort of long-term memory, can refer to past events, actually hold a conversation, would be a big plus. Of course, the moment it starts shit-testing it's a liability, so it has to stay compliant.

Post: #72

Yes but can the fucking thing cook???

Post: #73

(02-26-2019 10:18 AM)Green-On-GO Wrote:  Yes but can the fucking thing cook???

I think you won't need the sex doll for that. They'll just have robotic kitchens that can download recipes from famous chefs.

Post: #74

(02-25-2019 04:07 PM)jeffreyjerpp Wrote:  

(02-25-2019 03:30 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  ^^^^ So the same guy who claims that today's most advanced algorithms are barely capable of analyzing a still photo believes that in 10 years we'll have fully functional sex robots complete with such realistic AI, materials, locomotion, personalities and sexuality that no flesh and blood woman will be able to compete.

Right.

Yep.

I doubt it'll happen in 10 years. Look at Siri, it's only marginally better than when it was introduced 7 years ago.

When we're 10 years out, they'll already have fully functioning versions - just tethered to a computer bank and power supply.

Right now, Sophia is about the best version and she's not even close to what's needed.