Uncanny Vulvas - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#14909624
I couldn't help laughing at the bold bit, but there is much insight in this article. Lot's of links that I didn't copy over, so if you are interested go to the website and follow them.

I'm of the view that if we don't get to grips with evolutionary psychology and the implications of evolution (including above the neck) in particular, we won't be able to deal with most future challenges. In the western world I don't see any appreciation of this at all and in many quarters there seems to be a strong resistance to the idea itself. This obviously includes genetic and heritable traits in general.

Jacobite wrote:
Uncanny Vulvas

Image

Sex is consistently underrated as a driver of innovation. Yes, space exploration helped us develop the technology for things like cochlear implants, powdered (machine) lubricants and scratch resistant lenses. Lust has furthered the development of cash transfers, point-of-view filming and video chat. I predict that historians of the development of artificial intelligence are going to see sexual gratification as one of the phenomenon’s great motivators. Evolutionary psychology can give us insight into how sex robots are going to develop and the ramifications they’ll have on society.

Sexbots are usually woman-shaped gynoid machines. At the present time, sex robots are simple: they’re silicone sex dolls that have some capacity for movement and response. Manufacturers are rolling out new models and new promises: sex robots that respond to touch and penetration, sex robots with interchangeable faces and bodies and sex robots with different personalities. Future robots will have all the allure of the cues of fertility in a flesh-and-blood woman combined with the artificial intelligence that creates compulsive reward directed behavior.

Sex robots are overwhelmingly gynoid because heterosexual men drive the market for sexual products like prostitution and pornography. Across cultures, men desire more sexual partners, need to know someone for less time before they want to have sex with them, and have lower standards for a sexual liaison than women. Looking at gay men is instructive here. Their sexual interactions are not limited by women’s sexual choosiness and they, on average, have many more sexual partners than straight men or lesbians.

It isn’t hard to see the reason for this. Men don’t get pregnant and don’t lactate, and they have smaller, easier-to-produce sex cells than women. For a man, the cost of producing offspring is cheap. Getting one’s genes into the next generation is the engine of evolution. The low opportunity costs make men motivated to take every opportunity, even if it comes in the form of a robot. Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white, our evolved psychology can respond in maladaptive ways towards novel stimuli.

Courtship is expensive and complicated by design, and it’s the limiting factor of the sexual fulfillment of men. Women impose costs on men to gain sexual access for very good reasons: to test their genetic fitness and their long-term potential supporting a family. If courtship is costly and the costs are not clearly defined, this not only tests a man’s motivation toward a specific woman, it also acts to monopolize a man’s resources so he can’t afford to woo anyone else. Pornography and prostitution are popular because they arrive at sexual end goals, or a reasonable facsimile, with more clarity and lower costs than in the mating market.

The complications of courtship are driving improvements in sexual substitutes, like masturbation aids (e.g. fleshlight, fliphole) and 3-D porn. There are already thousands of RealDolls in the world, silicone sex dolls that cost around $5,000 each. LovePlus is a Japanese game in which players interact with a virtual girlfriend including kissing her by touching the screen and taking her out on dates, has hundreds of thousands of users. LovePlus is a great demonstration of how this market isn’t only about providing sex, but also virtual companionship. You can’t even have virtual sex with Rinko, the ingénue of the game. These substitutes aren’t very good, and yet they are already competing with flesh-and-blood companionship.

***

Union power, increases in mandatory working standards, and minimum wage laws accelerate the push toward automation. Machines are already replacing cashiers and factory workers. Soon truck drivers, clerks, and accountants will meet an unfavorable future, too. The current political climate around courtship and interactions between the sexes is more powerful than the market forces that are replacing jobs, because escalating costs aren’t transparent and neither is the punishment for not paying them. If a business owner wants to adhere to employment laws, he reads them, the costs of courtship are codified nowhere.

The average single man paying attention to contemporary social fashions will struggle to understand the new rules of meeting, courting, or having sex with women. Something as banal as trying to converse with a woman wearing headphones is now often considered harassment. A man’s chances of mating success increase when he approaches many women, but so too do his chances of a gaining reputation as sexist, exploitative, or immoral. To take a fraught example, how does a man know that a woman is genuinely consenting to sex? A lack of ability to pick up on cues can incur catastrophic costs.

Men high in conscientiousness, who are sensitive to social disapproval but who nonetheless have difficulty reading subtle social cues, could make good husbands for women. These men are unlikely to want to take the risk of approaching women. As substitutes like sex robots and virtual companions become better and cheaper, they will monopolize the attention of such men.

Think of an introverted engineer with Asperger’s syndrome who wasn’t sure how to broach a conversation with a woman back in 2015 and definitely isn’t sure how to do that in today’s climate. In 10 years he could have a beautiful robot companion (indeed, he could have one that could emulate the experience of having sex with dozens of different women) that has a lower barrier to entry than the mating market and that keeps him satisfied enough to remain a happy bachelor. Some woman misses out on a conscientious guy with a good income who might not know exactly how to respond when she says “nothing’s wrong,” but will definitely keep the cars tuned up to get the kids to their mathematics championships. The world might miss out on his sons and daughters and their analytical approaches to some of the world’s problems.

The kinds of men described above, who have difficulty reading social signals but who are nonetheless strongly sexually motivated, have a characteristic that means they’ll be less put off by sex robots than the average person: resistance to perceiving the uncanny valley. “The uncanny valley” is the way that representations that fall just short of looking like humans often look “creepy.” Anthropomorphized robots are more relatable and trustworthy than machine-like robots. It’s also difficult to imagine that many people would want to have sex with a conglomeration of gears and wheels.

My view is that the uncanny valley is something analogous to Capgras delusion, a psychological disorder that causes sufferers to believe that someone they know has been taken over by an imposter, often inhuman. According to VS Ramachandran, there are two aspects to recognizing faces: the identification of the external familiar representation and the “internal” validation – the warm emotion that goes along with it. In the uncanny valley, you recognize a robot as humanlike, but it’s missing the facial movement or some other characteristic that gives you a warm feeling of recognition. Many men won’t experience the uncanny valley, especially with regards to sex robots. These men are going to be the early adopters. Men are worse at identifying faces than women and are far more likely to have prosopagnosia, the inability to recognize faces.

Sex is weird. Sex is gross and awkward. Natural selection addressed this issue by causing arousal to attenuate the human disgust response. It’s worth noting that men have a much lower baseline sexual disgust than women, and that sexual excitement further reduces disgust sensitivity in men. In a classic paper by Dan Ariely, aroused men had much more positive attitudes about all kinds of unusual sexual acts. Sexually aroused men were more likely to say that it would be fun to watch a woman urinating or that they could imagine getting sexually excited by contact with an animal). 3-D pornography of video game or cartoon characters that might be creepy in a nonsexual context are popular genres. The most direct evidence that men won’t be put off by uncanny vulvas is from a paper that laments the “unabashed sexualization of female-gendered robots” in comments on YouTube videos of robots. Bawdy comments on gynoids – “you’ll have to replace it monthly due to semen corrosion,” for example – were more frequent than comments expressing unease.

Perhaps we should encourage some men to use sex robots. Men who get environmental cues that they’re evolutionary dead-ends disproportionately menace society. In the 1980s, evolutionary psychologist couple Wilson and Daly found that perpetrators of violence and homicide had something in common: they were young, single and didn’t have access to the kinds of resources with which to win mates. Polygynous societies in which wealthier men have access to multiple women are more violent and less stable because they have a class of young men without the prospect of getting a mate. Monogamy, rather than being the state of nature, may have been an important cultural technology for reducing violence.

Men have much greater variance of reproductive success than women. Sometimes they get cues that they have nothing to lose you have everything to gain from taking risks through violence, sexual or otherwise. This is one reason that pornography decreases the rate of sexual assault. When men get cues that women are interested in them, even if those women are mere representations, their evolved psychology leads them to less risky ways of attempting to achieve reproductive success. How many teenaged boys would be able to build up the resentment to commit mass shootings or suicide if they had a beautiful sex robot at home?

Importantly, this is distinct from Freudian catharsis, or “discharge theory”. There isn’t evidence that aggressive or sexual impulses can be purged by “getting them out of your system.” The motivation for these impulses is instead weakened by environmental cues that indicate you don’t need to engage in risky strategies to achieve reproductive success. The cues a sex robot would provide to the evolved psychology of a previously disgruntled teenager would be “you’re achieving incredible mating success and status by staying at home and playing video games, keep at it!”

This feeling of achievement from merely staying at home, playing video games and having sex with a robot is, of course, a double-edged sword. We could call this “fake fitness”– subjective cues of success without real-world ramifications. Society and education incentivize effort with markers of status like diplomas, potentially means to an end for reproductive success. The men who would have been most likely to have access to multiple women throughout history were men high in status, like kings and men high in dominance, like warlords. Video games and social media already undermine the native psychological mechanisms that make us work towards status — they supply more immediate rewards and take far less effort than anything we work towards out in the real world. Sex robots are only going to make that worse, especially for young men. The game Love Plus, in which the ultimate reward is simply getting to know a virtual girl and attaining her virtual signals of approval has already replaced pursuing dating real women for thousands of men. Imagine if winning a video game was punctuated not with just saving the princess but having sex with her. Imagine if men could have the diversity of sexual experience of Genghis Khan, Muhammad, or John F. Kennedy without actually achieving anything. Sex robots are about to make the virtual world even more alluring.

What does this mean for women? When the sex ratio changes, so too do sexual norms; sex robots are going to emulate an increase in the ratio of women to men. On University campuses with a larger percentage of women relative to men, women are more likely to have casual sex, they’re less likely to be virgins and they’re more likely to have negative attitudes about men. When there are more men than women, women are much less likely to have casual sex. The majority sex competes for the minority sex and the minority sex calls the shots- a female majority competes with casual sex and a male majority competes with long-term commitment. Sex robots will emulate a majority women ratio, shifting women to compete for men’s attention by requiring less courtship and commitment in exchange for sex. The long-term ramifications are unclear, especially the way long-term technologies and cultural norms will interact. Perhaps women will discover they have to make the costs of courtship both low and transparent to compete with sex robots. Or, perhaps, new technology could enable women to recombine their genes with one another, making men enamored with sex robots (or men generally) totally redundant.

There has, unsurprisingly, been a feminist backlash to the development of sex robots. “[Sexbots] reinforce an incredibly dangerous idea: that women’s bodies are only bodies, and exist only for men’s use” says founder of Feminist Current, Meghan Murphy. Kathleen Richardson, head of the campaign against sex robots, wants to stop the development of sex robots because she believes sexbot-human relationships are unethical due to their similarity to relationships between sex workers and clients which she also wishes to abolish.

Not all feminists agree with Murphy and Richardson, Kate Devlin endorses the development of sex robots but agrees that hypersexualized and subservient representations of women are problematic. Devlin wants to go beyond sex robot technology “developed by men, for men” and believes sex robot technology should be steered in a progressive direction, beyond” heteronormative” and gendered depictions including sex robots designed for women’s pleasure.

Both camps underestimate the degree to which evolved psychology, rather than culture or technology, shape attitudes. If feminism had been as well-developed during the advent of pornography or prostitution would they look fundamentally different? Would there be a way of steering them in a progressive direction, to make them as appealing to women as they are to men? The technologies developed to satisfy sexual urges will always cater to masculine tastes and interests that are older than media or indeed humanity itself. Unless or until we live in a post-gender transhumanist society, men will be the drivers of sexual technologies and markets.

Underpinning feminist anxiety is the specter of female replaceability. Having long been concerned with governing male desire, the feminist project now faces the possibility of being routed around. Men can build alternatives to a sexual market that has been made less navigable because of ideology. Substitutes are built and bargaining power dissipates. Sex robots are to gender politics as scabs are to labor relations.

Facing one’s own market-driven replaceability results in existential dread. But market innovation has already created something dreadful on the other side of the coin: a large segment of men that have no prospect of satisfying their most basic desires. French author Michel Houellebecq wrote on the topic of sexual have-nots in his novel, Whatever:

Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperisation. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It’s what’s known as ‘the law of the market’. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system, certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment in misery. In a totally liberal sexual system, certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.

Governing desire, in this case, becomes preventing the uncompensated losers of the market from making the best of their situation.

The Fermi Paradox is the unsettling idea that even though the chances of extraterrestrial life are extremely high, nobody else in the universe has contacted us, or visited us. Fitness-faking technology, which delivers the cues of status and sexual popularity, is evolving much faster than our minds can evolve to contend with them. Imagine extraterrestrial civilizations, in their millions, with their own super-advanced alien sex robots, too busy with proximate rewards to contact, colonize or destroy our little planet. In the shadow of desire-hacking technology, humans are going to need to get a sober view of sex differences, evolved motivations, and the best ways to exercise control to limit destruction and increase productivity.

Diana Fleischman is an evolutionary psychologist working in the United Kingdom. Follow her on Twitter.

User avatar
By One Degree
#14909627
Entertaining. I would think fear of STDs would be a very strong factor in deciding to be satisfied with sex robots also. I mean ‘no condom needed’ is quite the turn on.
Perhaps sex dolls are the solution to overpopulation. However, I agree it will be the ‘best genes’ that will be lost. This is happening anyway though.
#14909631
To the contrary, the best genes are represented in those with the character and moral fortitude to reject such degeneracy. The self-sustaining preppers in the woods.

These same preppers will also have less time to wait for the collapse if we implement this insanity.

So, if I am feeling particularly accelerationist, I would say "lets go for it!"

Besides, I have a housewife, I don't need a sex robot....plus, she can cook.

I don't have to change anything due to "semen corrosion,"

She just swallows, takes a shower, or produces another VS replica.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14909636
I agree you can’t beat a housewife. (Well actually you can, but it is frowned upon.)
The argument is the difficulty in finding a housewife in the first place. The fear is people of high moral character won’t want to mess with today’s bullshit. Where does the prepper find that wife to take to the woods?
#14909637
One Degree wrote:Where does the prepper find that wife to take to the woods?


Ultra Conservative Christian dating sites, Pro-gun forums, the typical places.

I am also of the opinion that a man should mold his woman to where he wants her. I was partly able to do this because we we're both so young and I was very driven and we had a fundamental agreement on outlook.

Its like everything in life, if you have a position of power and respectability people will be molded by you instead of the other-way-around. Its no different in a relationship.

One quick example: (keep in mind that I live in a rural area that judges families harshly if the men are hen-pecked and the women don't keep a clean house).

My uncles could cook, clean etc quite well and they married women that could not. Out of laziness and a lack of will, they just filled those roles. They ended up working full-time and coming home and doing all the house-work with wives that worked part-time and didn't do shit.

My father is an excellent cook, and he stills cook when he wants to; however, he wanted a traditional marriage and my mother could not cook when they got married. IT didn't matter, he made very clear that if she was going to be home with kids and work less than he did (he worked 60 hours mon-fri) that she would be doing the cooking. He was NOT going to do it. Now, my mom is an excellent cook.

I took this same strategy. I've known how to cook since I was 14, my wife sucked at cooking. I told my wife when we got married that she would be the primary cook and that if I ever cooked it would only be ramen noodles., period.

Needless to say, she is an awesome cook now (out of necessity), and I cook when I want to. But that was the deal, she stays home, i expect a clean house and food on the table, i bring home the money and will support her to be at home.

A malleable young woman with little experience at life will eventually fall in line if she marries a man who is strong, financially stable, intellectual, charming, driven, determined, and resolute. Her values will eventually reflect his because he convinces her of them, she will do what he wishes because she wants to please him out of respect. Likewise, the more they have in common, the more they will talk with each other and value each other's opinions and roles with respect as afforded to equals. For though the sexes are different and should do different things, they are equal in value.

Housewives are not pre-packaged in this era, they are made by men of quality.

If a dude doesn't have the balls to pursue changing a woman to where he wants her, and has objections to such, he doesn't deserve a housewife.

I'd like to think that quality man could turn a feminist into a homemaker in under a year purely by his charm and excellencies.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14909640
[usermention=45782]@Victoribus Spolia[/usermention

I shared many of your views when first married and my wife went along with them because the roles were convenient. However, her needs changed. She needed to have a job, separate from us, for her own self worth.
What serves you best today may not be what you both need tomorrow. Insisting you both continue in roles one of you has grown out of will be disastrous. But as long as you both enjoy the roles you play, no problem.
By B0ycey
#14909641
Pure MGTOW trash. If men can't be arsed to court, let them enjoy their sex robots. It only allows real man to maintain their genes in the evolution pool - and that can only be good for society.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14909645
Victoribus Spolia wrote:But that was the deal, she stays home, i expect a clean house and food on the table, i bring home the money and will support her to be at home.


If you ask me that's a shitty deal. You save bit of homework in exchange for paying for everything. It's what men do who are afraid of losing a financially independent wife because they think they are not good enough.
By Decky
#14909794
There is something odd about men who think there is something masculine about not looking after themselves (cooking, keeping their living area clean etc) they essentially want to live as adult toddlers complete with a mum to look after them and yet they claim they are doing the most masculine thing possible. It is very odd. Maybe it is linked to the prevalence of homosexuality on the right?

Image

The ultimate strong masculine individual according to the right.
User avatar
By Rancid
#14909797
I just want yo uall to know I have the biggest balls in the room.
By Decky
#14909806
Rancid wrote:I just want yo uall to know I have the biggest balls in the room.


User avatar
By AFAIK
#14909818
These arguments can be applied in the opposite direction. A woman can masturbate without worrying about violence or pregnancy therefore more sex dolls will be male analogues. Women already buy way more sex aids than men do.

Sorry if that was already covered, I only skimmed the article because it was very verbose.
By skinster
#14911105
Misogynist and MGTOW trash, indeed.

There are about two sensible posts in this thread (not including mine).

Sex robots are disgusting, for loser-men who don't know how to meet women - it really takes so little - who tend to blame women for their own inadequacies and are full of entitlement. Men who are like this, who think they don't have to put any effort into making relationships happen, please do humanity a favour and kill yourself. Thanks in advance. :)
By Truth To Power
#14911352
Saeko wrote: Markets alone don't cause inequality.

True: they only reflect it.
Concentrations of capital do.

No. Some inequality is natural, but most is caused by privilege: legal entitlements to benefit from the uncompensated abrogation of others' rights, such as land titles, bank licenses and IP monopolies. Privilege causes concentration of privilege, which shows up in concentration of wealth. Capital -- production equipment -- does not naturally concentrate, as competition removes its returns.
User avatar
By Kaiserschmarrn
#14914044
skinster wrote:Sex robots are disgusting, for loser-men who don't know how to meet women - it really takes so little - who tend to blame women for their own inadequacies and are full of entitlement. Men who are like this, who think they don't have to put any effort into making relationships happen, please do humanity a favour and kill yourself. Thanks in advance. :)

Why do you care so much what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms that you denigrate them? What's wrong with you? :eh:
By Rich
#14914091
skinster wrote:Sex robots are disgusting, for loser-men who don't know how to meet women - it really takes so little - who tend to blame women for their own inadequacies and are full of entitlement. Men who are like this, who think they don't have to put any effort into making relationships happen, please do humanity a favour and kill yourself. Thanks in advance. :)

Note how lefties constantly seek to denigrate men who are not as successful with women as Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton or Harvey Weinstein. Harvey Weinstein had a hot wife, it wasn't like he coouldn't ever get hot women to have sex with him voluntarily. Its the same way Feminsts laud Black Rap Artists who speak openly of their desire to rape women, or describe the misogynist, wife-beating rapists of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Iraq as noble resistance fighters.

Now personally I'm not into sex robots I don't even like fake tits, but there is a simple arithmetic problem. Now maybe I'm more choosy than the average guy, if its a choice between a fat girl friend and no girl friend I'll choose no girl friend every time. But when you take into account all the old women, at most, I repeat at most 25% of women could really be called sexually attractive. So its simple maths, most guys are not going to have an attractive girl friend for most of their lives. Now I'm no Conservative. In the past rich, powerful men could get away with murder, literally. But the fact is that in the past the strong social pressures to life long marriage did make things fairer to a certain extent.

It would be great if the World bank would start producing gini coefficients for men's sexual success. I like the liberal sexual game. I guess I'm what you'd call a sexual free marketeer, a sexual libertarian, but I don't have to pretend that the free market in sex is always fair. Yes some men might improve their chances by getting out more, or by occasionally actually listening to what a woman is saying. But it won't level the playing field and any improvement in their success will be another man's loss.
By B0ycey
#14914094
Fuck it, Rich has convinced me. I'm pro robot because there aren't enough attractive women. As if robots are attractive. :lol:

Also, what is your take on fat old men? Are they attractive? Society evens itself out. Men don't stay twenty forever and neither do women. But if the relationship is strong enough, you grow old together.

But as it happens let men have their sex robots. It at least gives them options if they get rejected by women because they are ungentlemen like.
By Rich
#14914146
B0ycey wrote:Also, what is your take on fat old men? Are they attractive?

Oh it definitely happens the other way, but less so. Very Rich women can get attractive young men as lovers and husbands. Check out West Indian sex - romance tourism. If you're a White woman it doesn't matter how fat and ugly you are, you'll have fit young Black men cueing up to be be your boyfriends. But (heterosexual) men just don't have the same sexual attraction to power as women do. There is just no female equivalent of Beatlemania. Now sure success didn't just drop into the Beatles, they had to work at their craft, but there's no way they "deserved" their level of sexual success. There were millions, literally millions of women willing to open their legs for the Beatles without any guarantee of a long term relationship. There was probably a few hundred thousand even for Ringo.

The Beatles are actually not too bad but a lot of rock music deeply objectifies women and glorifies male aggression and dominance. And women choose to reward these objectifiers over and over and over again. Don't get me wrong I love the Doors and the Stranglers, its just the time when feminists can have their cake eat it are over, at least if I get any say in the matter. While women continue to throw themselves at rich men, dominant men, aggressive men, sexualising men, lying men, misogynistic men, you can forget about me buying the feminist guilt trip.
Last edited by Rich on 12 May 2018 23:36, edited 1 time in total.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls General Election Summary 2022 Date[…]

Claims that mainstream economics is changing rad[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]