Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35
  1. #1
    Senior Member Latinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Somewhere in Latin America. Ay!
    Posts
    261
    Reputation
    1058
    Type
    Unquiet Bachelor

    "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Well men, I have seen many Mgtows talking about the creation of "female robots" as a solution against the female parasitism, manipulation, arrogancy, irrationality, misandry, etc. But I have read about other ideas, like we could do better if we also support the creation of "artificial females", i.e., something like genetically modified "women" as a solution to erase the rotten female nature, and one day, in the future, we can even erase the existence of "natural women" and replace them by "artificial females". I agree that this could be a good solution, at least in some points, and this can be even easier than create perfect "female robots". We could spread this idea and even support scientists who are interested in this idea too.

    And by the way, creating these "artificial females" could be a good hobby for those Mgtows who are interested in Genetics and could be a good objective of life for many Mgtows. What do you think about this?
    .

  2. #2
    Senior Member Insidious_Sid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    3,117
    Reputation
    27145
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    A man wanting a child without the need for a parasitic woman might benefit from an artificial womb.
    But a man just wanting sexual gratification... well, it can be even better. We've already eliminated the "real flesh and blood" woman from the sex equation. Now mere video depictions of what amounts to women fucking other men is used widely for sexual release. But imagine a sexual release so powerful and so complete that viewing or even imagining a woman is not even necessary?!

    You don't need a video or images or a robot or doll that looks like a woman. All of these things reinforce a biological imperative to mate with a woman. And nature has us programmed to desire top females, which all other men also desire, making them in high demand. And we all know that humans in high demand have a tendency to name their price, and can often be rather fickle and petulant. Sort of like the 15 year old girl with a $100K budget for her Sweet 16 birthday party throwing a fit because she can't find sufficiently talented entertainment to meet her exquisite standards...

    The best way, in my mind, to enjoy sex is to completely eliminate the female as a concept from the images of sexual gratification. After all, sexual gratification is just natures mind-fuck into getting you to mate and desiring high-value females is included to ensure competition. The best females then select the "best males". If men didn't need to mate (if humans reproduced by spores) then men would not desire females (we'd probably hunt them).

    The idea of tantric masturbation techniques (and associated accessories and machines) is a novel concept for males.

    After all, will feminists bemoan the idea that male sexual gratification with no human female images, constructs or concept is still a bad thing? Of course they will. But feminists will always be obsessed with thwarting male enjoyment of life. They ultimately believe only females should be able to enjoy life, and that men are only here on this planet to silently support them.

    This is why feminism is a cancer, that hopefully one day will be cured. Sadly, the death of the planet or the fall of socialist governments might be the only way for this human tragedy to resolve itself.

    But in the mean time, learning to live without the need for not just a "real woman" but even the idea or image of a woman is true male liberation.
    - Feminism is Cancer.
    - Where have all the good men gone? Away. Far far away... from you.
    - NAWALT? Maybe, but EWALT means Russian Roulette is a much safer bet...

  3. #3
    Senior Member Eiji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Sector 001, Earth, UCAS, Ohio Valley region
    Posts
    2,522
    Reputation
    3792
    Type
    pragmatist

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Quote Originally Posted by Insidious_Sid View Post
    A man wanting a child without the need for a parasitic woman might benefit from an artificial womb.
    But a man just wanting sexual gratification... well, it can be even better. We've already eliminated the "real flesh and blood" woman from the sex equation. Now mere video depictions of what amounts to women fucking other men is used widely for sexual release. But imagine a sexual release so powerful and so complete that viewing or even imagining a woman is not even necessary?!
    I wonder if Aldous Huxley may have had the right idea..... (There's a mention of "feelies" in "Brave New World"... something like "simsense" from cyberpunk novels or the game "Shadowrun")
    Last edited by Eiji; October 21, 2016 at 6:51 PM.
    "I live in freedom, under my own flag." - Captain Harlock

    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C Clarke

    "Who's the more foolish? The Fool? Or the Fool who follows him?" - Obi-wan "Ben" Kenobi

    "In servitutem redigi non recuso" - Latin (translates to "I refuse to be dominated.")

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    5,028
    Reputation
    23771
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Reliable male contraception will change everything. Everything. Just around the corner a day is coming where a woman who wants a baby will have to demonstrate to a man that she will be a good mother to a child. And they mostly all want to have a baby. Their howls of anguish will reach the moon, when men en mass start saying "my body, my choice: the mother of my child needs to be someone who can cook, budget, and keep house, someone feminine and kind".

    Everything, everything that is driving men to go their own way has its roots in cheap, effective, contraception for women. Vasalgel/RISUG will be utterly, utterly seismic and people don't understand just how seismic it will be. It is the last hope for the west. It may be too late.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    189
    Reputation
    669
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Quote Originally Posted by Latinus View Post
    But I have read about other ideas, like we could do better if we also support the creation of "artificial females", i.e., something like genetically modified "women" as a solution to erase the rotten female nature, and one day, in the future, we can even erase the existence of "natural women" and replace them by "artificial females".
    Eugenics is never the answer. It always ends badly. Even the idea that someone would forceably alter another human being to suit there needs is a big problem for me. What if we said the same about another demographic. Would it sound any better. The big problem is if you let someone do this to women, they can and will do it to men, or blacks or whites or whatever. It can just as easily (or even more easily in this culture) be done to men rather then women. Feminism has already tried it. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...hate-movement/ .

    The second problem is that the evolutionary pressures that made women the way they are still exist and affect their evolutionary process. As someone who took there degree in genetic egineering and evolutionary theory, I know that it would be unlikely for the changes to stick unless the nature of female biology were to fundimentaly shift from where they are today. Mommy being the high enery high risk incubator will drive future evolution to recreate women as they are today withing a few generations. Biological women who incubate young will almost certainly remain just as they are no matter what you try to do. The robotic option would be much better. It also does not involve modifing other people to service yourself.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,217
    Reputation
    9526
    Type
    Bachelor

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    With all due respect, once threads on MGTOW forums start making pro Artificial women or pocket pussy, or VR sex threads--that's where MGTOW jumps the shark to me and becomes yet another male version of rad-fem ideology to me.

    Is that NOT what those woman essentially say? I'm too lazy to waste my time to get a link from a recent thread. But feminazi utopia, according to a few of them at least, is to put the bottom 80% of males into some slave camp. Genetic engineering sounds like some beyond Brave New World sort of facism to me!

    It's threads like these which is why I prefer to call myself a "red pill type" instead of a "MGTOW type." Because too many ghosts at odd times take the MGTOW definition WAY out into left field.

    Eugenics? Be careful what you wish for, ha ha...






    .
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Ace Francis; October 21, 2016 at 1:42 AM.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator William Noy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    3,020
    Reputation
    12883
    Type
    Dark Knight

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    It's an interesting idea, but I think there are ethical and moral problems with it that aren't being discussed.

    Any time you're talking about genetically engineering a human being for a specific purpose, and using it to replace all of a particular group of humans... well, we have tribunals over things like that.
    Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. --Seneca

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Germoney/Eurabia
    Posts
    1,569
    Reputation
    5881
    Type
    NeutralGhost

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Quote Originally Posted by William Noy View Post
    It's an interesting idea, but I think there are ethical and moral problems with it that aren't being discussed.

    Any time you're talking about genetically engineering a human being for a specific purpose, and using it to replace all of a particular group of humans... well, we have tribunals over things like that.

    And then some country will do it anyway. There's no way we won't have genetic engineering and gene doping in the future. Question is, will people have to use black market drugs, will they have only access to it when they have some kind of illness or will it be out in the open as a public good?
    I've already mentioned TB-500 in another thread, but of course this is just one promising substance of many. There's also BPC-157 which has been shown to regenerate sinews, cells and other tissues quite effectively (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16609979; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030672; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14554208).
    TB-500 is already getting sold as a veterinarian drug http://www.medivetequine.com/
    But of course this is peanuts compared with drugs that permanently turn off certain genes, limit their expression or alter their function in the human body.
    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_doping

  9. #9

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Sigh....they made a movie about this...twice! Once in the 1970s, once in the past 10 years. It was called "The Stepford Wives."

    I think this is just silly. This concept embarrasses me.

    Women's pampered position in the West (and Japan) is unique and ephemeral. Once feminism, multiculturalism, and socialism destroys the first world by turning it into the third world through mass migration of non-assimilating peoples who would use the Feminine Mystique for toilet paper, women who decried the state of housewives in the suburbs of early Cold War America as teenagers will look upon those circumstances as a halcyon lost paradise in their declining years.

    They will look out the barred windows of their home in fortress-like gated communities, listen to the police sirens in the distance, smell the smoke of burning tires from yet another "newcomer" protest, draw the shades and then sit down to wonder if one of the district's rape gangs had abducted their granddaughters when their armed convoy was coming back from the food distribution center. The electric lights in the living room will flicker, then go out, leaving them to wonder what the heck their grandmothers were complaining about when they talked about being an oppressed housewife in the 1960s.
    Last edited by sam luis obispo; April 24, 2017 at 10:36 PM. Reason: 2016...the good old days of free-wheeling posts without self-censoring

  10. #10

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wombat View Post
    Reliable male contraception is the last hope for the west. It may be too late.
    I am very sorry, but in my opinion it is already too late for the west. It will take a catastrophic collapse of society, the economy, and governments in the west to get a reset. It will be ugly and painful for all. I will either be dead by that time, or I will die very early on during the collapse. There are advantages to being old and decrepit.

    Don't take this as a counter argument, I am 100% in favor of doing all that we can to encourage easy, reversible, and non-hormonal male contraceptive options. I will add that I no longer have a horse in the race, as I got the snip quite some time ago, so I am just an interested bystander. There is a feeling of peace that comes when you turn a production model into a sports model. For younger guys that might someday want children (you never know), the snip may not be an option. They need some form of protection from the predations of the baby rabies women with whom they have to deal.

  11. #11
    Senior Member John Deer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    ON, Canada
    Posts
    850
    Reputation
    2722
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"



    What could go wrong???
    Attached Images Attached Images
    The only violence I have experienced has been at the hands of women.

    I live in Canada, So I'm living behind enemy behinds.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Germoney/Eurabia
    Posts
    1,569
    Reputation
    5881
    Type
    NeutralGhost

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Quote Originally Posted by John Deer View Post


    What could go wrong???

  13. #13
    Senior Member Insidious_Sid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    3,117
    Reputation
    27145
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Well, genetically modifying females is taking something dangerous and trying to make it safer. That sounds like it could easily end badly!

    I agree that male reproductive choice would be a game changer and, if there was true equality, men would NOT have to give up reproductive choice simply because they are not the gender charged with being the human incubator and delivery system of the child. Yes, it's a long 9 months, it changes the body, it's hard, it hurts, it's uncomfortable and complications can even cause death... but TWO PEOPLE merged their genetic material to conceive that child and TWO PEOPLE should have a say. If women just hatched eggs, they could do what they want with their young - eat them for all I care.

    Right now, the system as it stands says that a woman gets pregnant the MAN should have been more responsible if he didn't want a child, even though two people engaged in the sex act. Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to parenthood. A woman can absolve herself of the responsibility of parenthood after conception - so why can't a man? It's her body, but it's HIS genetic material she is in possession of and technically using to create life.

    As for my original comments about eliminating women from the male sexual thought process, that is ultimately Level Four MGTOW. I myself am experiencing this regularly - release without any thought of a woman whatsoever and it's getting more and more appealing as I master my new "craft". (TMI perhaps, but it's relevant). If one can "love themselves" emotionally then I can't see why it would be wrong to love ones self physically, and also enjoy personal physical intimacy. The idea that men need a female partner to have a fulfilling sex life is a lie. Women want us to believe this because it gives them power over men - power they need to extract resources from men and survive.

    Oops women have careers now and don't need men and in many cases don't even want men.

    So why are we men still believing the female body is necessary for sexual gratification, even long after a man decides he really wants nothing to do with a woman in every other matter conceivable? Red Pill and MGTOW has made me really... NOT attracted to women, even in a raw physical sense. I do get why men would want nothing to do with a woman but still desire sex, or even friendship and physical intimacy, because it was not all that long ago I felt the same way. But I've kind of gotten past that in recent months.

    In my case, I took the whole bottle of red pills, and I no longer crave being alone, nekked and bumping uglies with a woman anymore. I have not realized a propensity to do "same" with a male either!! To me, the sexual urge is something I can just get rid of, while having more fun and stress relief. But, it's still no more than a waste elimination process like urination to me. (In that I have no desire for any more children anyways...)

    As time goes on, I am getting more comfortable being... asexual? No.... autosexual.

    Perhaps auto-sexuality is where many MGTOWs can find peace. I know for me as long as I have an urge to fornicate with a female, my sexual urges will be at complete odds with what I know in my heart mind and soul: I want NOTHING to do with the modern female. They're just too demanding, toxic and soul draining. And in that light, wanting "only sex" seems like some kind of perverse destructive addiction - being tethered to something that is ultimately bad for you.

    Men who still are friends with women, enjoy fucking women, P4P, PUA, FWB... of course, that can be part of any particular man's "way" - whatever floats your boat. But for an autosexual who doesn't want children, women are 100% irrelevant from a sexual standpoint.

    I suppose in that sense, for some of us, our time of true male liberation has finally come.
    Last edited by Insidious_Sid; October 21, 2016 at 8:10 PM.
    - Feminism is Cancer.
    - Where have all the good men gone? Away. Far far away... from you.
    - NAWALT? Maybe, but EWALT means Russian Roulette is a much safer bet...

  14. #14
    Super Moderator William Noy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    3,020
    Reputation
    12883
    Type
    Dark Knight

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Quote Originally Posted by Aintdealingwithyoshit View Post
    And then some country will do it anyway. There's no way we won't have genetic engineering and gene doping in the future. Question is, will people have to use black market drugs, will they have only access to it when they have some kind of illness or will it be out in the open as a public good?
    I'm not coming out against genetic engineering necessarily. What I'm saying is that when you start talking about using one genetic group to replace another, the entire world agrees that's a serious crime--serious enough to fight world wars over.

    When I was in college, women in my class decided men were "too violent" and openly talked about genetically engineering a tamer man when the technology became available and using it to replace us. I had the same problem with that proposition.

    Also, due to the possibility of unforeseen consequences of genetic engineering, I'm a lot more comfortable with gene therapies for consenting adults. For unborn children, I'll go so far as to support the correcting of known genetic deficiencies, but no further at this point in history. My opinion may change as the technology becomes more widely used and tested.
    Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. --Seneca

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Germoney/Eurabia
    Posts
    1,569
    Reputation
    5881
    Type
    NeutralGhost

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Quote Originally Posted by William Noy View Post
    I'm not coming out against genetic engineering necessarily. What I'm saying is that when you start talking about using one genetic group to replace another, the entire world agrees that's a serious crime--serious enough to fight world wars over.

    When I was in college, women in my class decided men were "too violent" and openly talked about genetically engineering a tamer man when the technology became available and using it to replace us. I had the same problem with that proposition.

    Also, due to the possibility of unforeseen consequences of genetic engineering, I'm a lot more comfortable with gene therapies for consenting adults. For unborn children, I'll go so far as to support the correcting of known genetic deficiencies, but no further at this point in history. My opinion may change as the technology becomes more widely used and tested.
    Of course you'll need long-term human & animal studies to ascertain safety. That much is a given. All I'm saying is these things will come one way or the other. And right now there are substances on the black market DECADES ahead of what can be legally bought (because the legal market entrance of a pharmaceutical drug takes A LOT of time and A LOT of money. Unfortunately some drugs never get released despite their promising abilities because of these circumstances). On the one hand I understand the scrutiny because there have been drugs that have severely damaged people before and they turn into very costly lawsuits for these pharmaceutical companies, so they want to be on the safe side. On the other hand they just put GMO food on the market so all of us can play guinea pigs - after all they don't even have to put GMO on the label in many cases. And anti-depressant drugs and shit like that gets flooded into the pharmaceutical market anyway, despite massive and VALID concerns regarding their safety and actual efficacy.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Latinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Somewhere in Latin America. Ay!
    Posts
    261
    Reputation
    1058
    Type
    Unquiet Bachelor

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Quote Originally Posted by Insidious_Sid View Post

    You don't need a video or images or a robot or doll that looks like a woman. All of these things reinforce a biological imperative to mate with a woman. And nature has us programmed to desire top females, which all other men also desire, making them in high demand.

    But in the mean time, learning to live without the need for not just a "real woman" but even the idea or image of a woman is true male liberation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wombat View Post
    Reliable male contraception will change everything. Everything. Just around the corner a day is coming where a woman who wants a baby will have to demonstrate to a man that she will be a good mother to a child. And they mostly all want to have a baby. Their howls of anguish will reach the moon, when men en mass start saying "my body, my choice: the mother of my child needs to be someone who can cook, budget, and keep house, someone feminine and kind".

    Everything, everything that is driving men to go their own way has its roots in cheap, effective, contraception for women. Vasalgel/RISUG will be utterly, utterly seismic and people don't understand just how seismic it will be. It is the last hope for the west. It may be too late.
    These two points could be good ideas too. But these things also need a more advanced knowledge about "biotecnologies"

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrixtheGreat View Post
    Eugenics is never the answer. It always ends badly. Even the idea that someone would forceably alter another human being to suit there needs is a big problem for me. What if we said the same about another demographic. Would it sound any better. The big problem is if you let someone do this to women, they can and will do it to men, or blacks or whites or whatever. It can just as easily (or even more easily in this culture) be done to men rather then women. Feminism has already tried it. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...hate-movement/ .

    The second problem is that the evolutionary pressures that made women the way they are still exist and affect their evolutionary process. As someone who took there degree in genetic egineering and evolutionary theory, I know that it would be unlikely for the changes to stick unless the nature of female biology were to fundimentaly shift from where they are today. Mommy being the high enery high risk incubator will drive future evolution to recreate women as they are today withing a few generations. Biological women who incubate young will almost certainly remain just as they are no matter what you try to do. The robotic option would be much better. It also does not involve modifing other people to service yourself.
    Just because mad guys like Hitler used eugenics in an evil way, this means that every kind of eugenics is evil? Really? But I don't think it so. Of course, I believe that many "mad scientists" will try to do evil things using eugenics, but I think this is just a drop of water among other things that elites can use against people, and this is not even the worse if you think better.

    It's right that it can end bad, but I think that in the end everything will ends bad and we will go extinct. I just wonder if men need to deal with annoying females till the end of mankind. But as I said before, it is just about a distant future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace Francis View Post
    With all due respect, once threads on MGTOW forums start making pro Artificial women or pocket pussy, or VR sex threads--that's where MGTOW jumps the shark to me and becomes yet another male version of rad-fem ideology to me.

    Is that NOT what those woman essentially say? I'm too lazy to waste my time to get a link from a recent thread. But feminazi utopia, according to a few of them at least, is to put the bottom 80% of males into some slave camp. Genetic engineering sounds like some beyond Brave New World sort of facism to me!

    It's threads like these which is why I prefer to call myself a "red pill type" instead of a "MGTOW type." Because too many ghosts at odd times take the MGTOW definition WAY out into left field.
    Not my problem, I accept the name "rad-mgtows" or red piller, patriarchal, opressor, sexist, rapist, misogynist, apathyogynist, etc. I don't give a fuck about these "shamings" anymore, just like I don't buy anymore this bullshit "argument" telling that "it's just a few feminists". Sure, selecting 20% of alphas males and don't giving a fuck if the 80% is working in a slave camp is just an idea coming from "a few feminists", nothing to do with the standart female biology, so really, we don't need to change their rotten biologic nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aintdealingwithyoshit View Post
    And then some country will do it anyway. There's no way we won't have genetic engineering and gene doping in the future. Question is, will people have to use black market drugs, will they have only access to it when they have some kind of illness or will it be out in the open as a public good?
    I've already mentioned TB-500 in another thread, but of course this is just one promising substance of many. There's also BPC-157 which has been shown to regenerate sinews, cells and other tissues quite effectively (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16609979; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030672; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14554208).
    TB-500 is already getting sold as a veterinarian drug http://www.medivetequine.com/
    But of course this is peanuts compared with drugs that permanently turn off certain genes, limit their expression or alter their function in the human body.
    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_doping
    This makes me remember another important point and I thought about similar things. We can see that some kind of "eugenics" already exist and we don't even realize. Medicines and other "health tecnologies" are already a kind of eugenics, but we can talk about "subtle eugenics" in a bad way, like those estrogenic products that affects "masculinity".
    .

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Physics Lab
    Posts
    883
    Reputation
    2853
    Type
    sexually suspended

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Was there something about a woman which was not artificial in the first place?
    I for one have not seen this yet.

    It's down here somewhere, lemme take another look.
    -Jeffrey Lebowski.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Azure Nomad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,597
    Reputation
    16779
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Social engineering and genetic engineering organisms doesn't work in the long run in my opinion is because to paraphase a very fictional character "life finds a way".

    Resistant bacteria to antibiotics, crops supposedly resistant to certain pests end up being devoured by said pests, bee colonies being wiped out, etc.

    Genetic mutation is very unpredictable as the possibility it may or may not be beneficial. That is why even with targeted genetic selection you run the risk of unknown consequences because most organisms are not isolated enough in this world to "evolve". Evolution requires isolation and there isn't a single organism anymore on earth arguably that can do so without interruption.

    Stardusk and bar bar have done these thought exercises regarding genetic manipulation and the artificial womb and how it would change society. But the truth is that this is far off into the future and it has major moral and ethical considerations.

    Technically the idea of building a family through marriage is dead, but most people in the world don't recognize it yet. That is why shared parenting and single motherhood is the norm, so in the future I can see women choosing to have their own children via labs and then men choosing to have their own children via labs. But that is some dangerous ground if both men and women choose to go in that direction.

    So on one hand I think MRAs don't understand that the traditional way to raise and have children aka through marriage is dead. However, the alternative is that men and women choose to raise children via labs will cause unforeseen consequences, so in a way I understand why the MRA's try to cling to marriage 1.0 or even marriage 2.0.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    891
    Reputation
    1566
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    by the time we have 'general' artificial intelligence in sexbots, we will be more than half-way to super-intelligence. i believe a super-intelligence would solve any other problems we have, like genetics problems.

    brain in a box:
    IBM Researcher Dharmendra Modha - "Before the end of 2020 we will be able to produce a brain in box"


    anything nick bostrom
    Last edited by wool.wizard; February 4, 2017 at 4:57 PM. Reason: video

  20. #20
    Super Moderator Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    5,028
    Reputation
    23771
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: "Artificial females" to replace "natural women"

    Life finds a way. If men are violent and dangerous, it's because those traits are selected for. Women find strong, aggressive men to be hot. Alpha fucks/beta bucks. If feminists want to genetically engineer a kinder, gentler man, then that's the trait they need to target. Otherwise, women will simply breed with men that are not like that, and we are back to square 1.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 15, 2021, 7:34 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 29, 2015, 8:06 PM
  3. "Natural Flavoring"
    By jagrmeister in forum Random (Non-MGTOW subjects)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 24, 2015, 4:04 AM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 14, 2014, 10:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •