http://journalfocus.com/2016/09/sex bot-conference-starts-in

it makes me feel like you don't know the name of this board

>>17604481
maybe he's a depressed wizard, fearing a lonely death in regard of this technological change

Feels Ergo Proxy.

>>17604476
Horny. But then I'm a 4channer. White bread makes me horny.

>>17604476
makes me feel sorry for all those right and left hands

by that time my dick probably wont work; let alone the fact that the feminists in my country have already outlawed it in advance.

so i dont care. well actually i do

i cant wait for the day when women will be FORCED to actually attract a mate again. All those 300 pound hambeasts and 35+ office bitches are in for a rude awakening when you can go buy a 10/10. Bonus if it has an artificial womb installed.

The Reeeeeee'ing will be heard from low earth orbit

>>17604504
>women will be FORCED to actually attract a mate again
Well, women were always there to open their legs if they wanted to be fertilized by a man. They just got lazy by doing so, because society designated cucking as bad and single parenting is horrible.

>>17604504
>let alone the fact that the feminists in my country have already outlawed it in advance.

What country?

>>17604504
>by that time my dick probably wont work

2025 should be when they enter the market

>>17604476
Letting a robot having sex with you and learning your preferences by a backpropagation algorithm will never give you any useful psychological feedback. Humans will grow dull and emotional fags.

>>17604515
and they will probably cost 10,000,000 first thing off the shelf and last les than a year. It will take decades for the price to go down and reliability to go up

>>17604512

Canada, were fucked here. I hope every motherfucker who voted Trudeau chokes on their unemployment and feminism

theres hope though, maybe ill move elsewhere when i get some money and watch as it burns

>>17604521
>robot: "insert name" i want to learn how to REALLY make love to you! i want to know all your kinks, if your into roleplay, if you want to tie me up, or if you want me to be your fuck slave. Teach me your favorite positions. Im yours "insert name"

>real female: UGH!!! you want me to WHAT?! your THING isnt going anywhere near that area of my body! i tried that with "insert bigger, stronger, younger guy", and i didnt really like it so theres no chance you get to do it! you want to roleplay? fine im your wifes lawyer- im serving you divorce papers

>>17604522
With 10,000,000 you could fuck escorts for ~50 years.

I admit that I'm a bit of a technofobe in general (relatively speaking of course, I'm not against technology by any means), but I honestly think that once sexbots become common, people will relatively quickly become grossed out by real human on human sex.
There just is a certain ick factor about the smells, juices, noises etc that happen during sex. If you look at how common a change in etiquette (like shaving off pubes, circumcizing boys) has the result that people think the former situation was barbaric and disgusting, I do not trust that people will remain interested in the gory details of actual sex if they can get a 10/10 robot that cums every time without fail while they have their orgasm. Not to mention people are selfish and there's no pleasing a robot.

That, and on the short term I think the people who benefit from it and want it most, will also suffer negative consequences. I believe that there are people who could have long sex sessions with their robot in the weekend and return to their active and fulfilling life afterwards, but those are probably the people who are already getting laid. If you look at r9k and how people lock themselves up with the internet/porn/vidya cocktail, I REALLY doubt that adding a sexbot will improve their overall life quality. It's just another and better reason to never leave the house again.

File: kekus.jpg (9KB, 219x230px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 219x230px

>>17604522
>Canada

I heard that one goy got sentenced to prison because he disagreed with a feminist on Twitter.
Hang out there bro.

>>17604535
yep

other countries are more fucked then us though. The UK has an actual police division looking at peoples social media for wrongthink to throw them in jail

>>17604534
>That, and on the short term I think the people who benefit from it and want it most, will also suffer negative consequences
That's what I think, too. Someday those people will wake up and be depressed without realizing, that their emotional pain comes from their desire to impress a real human. It's like thinking about a hard exercise, while you just can google the solution and accept it. First one will may you suffer, but you gain much more from solving it. Second one lets proceed you fast, but you will never feel like you can accomplish things by yourself.

Sex is also a way of bonding and a part of a relationship.
A sexbot is just a better way of masturbating, it cannot replace sex with your partner.

>>17604538
society aint getting any better for them though

maybe if an inanimate object shows them affection that could be the one thing that keeps them from suiciding/going on rampage. Sort of like how an ugly/fatman can find happiness if they get a dog/cat

would be interesting to give someone like Elliot rogers a sex robot and see if he went on his rampage cause no women ever gave him a lick of attention.

>>17604545
I am 100% sure that Elliot would've gone on a shooting rampage with a sex doll. If you read his manifesto he is less hung up on not putting his dick insicde a woman than about women "ignoring and rejecting" him in his own eyes, not naturally flocking to him. Note how he does not dream about "a girlfriend" or even a cute/sweet girlfriend, but a tall Nordic goddess worthy of him who sees his superiority.

It was more about power, validation and acceptance from other people than about blue balls.

>>17604476
>Prognosis say that in 2050 sexbots will be more frequent sex partners than real humans.
I'm sure there are already more dildos and pocketpussies out there than real people.
sexbots are nothing more than ridiculously expensive sextoys.
so what.
you can't bond with a machine, unless you're braindamaged.

>tfw single ;_;

>>17604545
>>17604550
Some may develop some addiction like objectophilia, but I think that most people just want a warm body lying next to them after they wake up in the morning, that gives them the feeling of acceptance, love, care and so on. Unless a robot achieves this stage - and then robots would actually be humans - they can't replace human love.

>>17604561
I agree, but porn does even less to replace it. Still you see that the guys who struggle most with connecting with women try to bury themselves in it anyway, and convince themselves that they miss out on nothing (because women age badly, are physically underwhelming in real life, all have bad characters or whatever else) rather than leave their comfortzone and try harder to get started with someone anyway.

So I think that people would be aware that they are missing something, but that the premise might be so daunting to seek it out that they will rather focus on the robot and rationalize their feelings of emptiness away.

>>17604566
it also has to do with women and society

in the olden days, getting married meant something. It was an actual contract you couldnt just break on a whim cause your bored with your husband/wife.

Men grow up in households where a third to half of them see their parents getting divorced all wily nilly cause they had a fight. The man gets ass pounded in court, and the sons learn from the fathers mistake- never try. You will get asspounded.

Now you have women who were taught by their parents that they deserve EVERYTHING. They dont need to compromise. They earned it. And due to societies outlook on divorce they jump for it.

So women are going in seeing it as a meal ticket, the men dont want to do it. Sex robots, porn and the like are just symptoms of this.

>>17604576
Sure, times have changed, but the divorce stats aren't as bad as they are often made out to be. If you just look at people who have a higher education and got married at 25+, more people stay together than get divorced. Divorces have also been declining since 1980 (http://qz.com/306166/the-divorce-stat-that-just-keeps-cheating-50/).

Not to mention, yeah, plenty of people get divorced for bad reasons, but I think way too many young people now have this image of all marriages in the fifties somehow being lifelong love and devotion. When if you read books from that area or hear the stories (my parents grew up in the fifties), old couples who hated each other and did everything to sour one another's day were not a rarity. It IS in many ways a blessing, also for the children, for marriage to not literally be a lifelong commitment. And yeah, people go overboard and are often too quick to conclude that there's more potential out there, but people behaving less than ideally is of all time periods.

Also, there are as much girls who grew up in broken homes as boys, and plenty of entitled golden boys (look at posterboy Elliot). If anything I think boys are hit harder because girls flock together more and less girls have an isolated childhood as a result, combined with the expectation that guys make the first move and reach out.

>>17604566
That's right most humans are not motivated enough to see that going the easiest way could lead them into a dead end, which they never can escape. It would cause worldwide objectophilia.

>>17604589
That's not even true.
Studies show that girls are hitten harder from divorces - for example girls with divorced parents are much more likely to divorce themselves, have higher partner count, etc.
It doesn't happen for guys.

>>17604596
I was not talking specifically about the broken home situation but rather the dating situation. It is of course hard to get a real thorough understanding of it beyond personal observation, but I absolutely do have the impression that the average girl is better off trying to find a guy than the other way around. Hell, I think that even if they both remain single girls typically still have more going on in their life than just distraction and consumption of media.

>>17604537
Source?

>>17604598
Oh I misread, I'm sorry.
It's very hard to tell. Probably it's easier because, in a way, dating has always been "guys asking girls out" so a girl who has a more passive role still has chances to get guys, while he other way around it doesn't work.
It is also true that guys are more likely to have mental problems like autism spectrum disorders and such, which lowers your social skills.

>>17604601
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1608009/scotland-yard-to-open-2-million-thought-police-unit-to-hunt-online-bullies/

>>17604598
My good sense tells me that this reasoning is a bit subjective, while my mind tells me you're mostly right with saying girls are better of in finding a sexpartner. Though I want to view this objectively. While women have the option of opening their legs for the next guy they meet (and he will most likely accept this oppurtunity), they aren't always in search of a sexpartner, but someone with a good heart, that cares for them. Those whiny slutty bitches don't represent womanhood. For them it's equally difficult to find a potential marriage partner as it is for man to find a sexpartner. It's just that most men that didn't have sex yet, think of it as marriage declaration. It's also true that most men are more tolerant towards a girl that gives them the pussy and is happy in their relationship. They aren't so complex in their choice of partners, if you blend out the choice by looks.

>>17604603
No problem. Yeah it's a complicated issue. I think hormones play a role, as much twelve to eighteen year old boys are horny enough to see any girl their age as potentially promising if she pays them attention (or even if she does not). As I mentioned I also think girls are more inclined to be inclusive and team up, even outsiders among each other, so the awkward girls get more chances to get their social skills up to par. If you look at autism among women, a huge part of the reaosn it is so underestimated and underreported is because women much, much more often learn to disguise the signs of their autism and fake social behavior that does not come naturally than their male counterparts. So that seems to show that women generally have an easier time to adjust for personal shortcomings/difficulties socially.

And this is just a gut feel/observation, but I often feel like guys are in general more obsessive than women, more inclined to take things to an extreme. My experience is that men are more common to want to excel in something (and to regard not necessarily wanting to as unambitious and weak-willed), whereas women are more likely to value different experiences, and often think the attitude of needing to be #1 (as opposed to just bettering your own skills and not comparing) immature and restrictive.
That's just anecdotal stuff but to me it seems to play into why guys are so much more likely to really get sucked whole into gaming, internet stuff and so on.

>>17604504
it will be no different than prostitutes and porn unfortunately. Fucking is not about fucking, its about all the social bullshit that comes with it

>>17604619
It is very subjective, as I said this is just my experience. I feel that women are always in a way looking for the man who distinguishes himself, who sets himself apart. That doesn't have to mean anything showy. It can just mean that he expressly reached out to her. It can mean that he has a combination of everyday qualities that she finds all too rare to see combined in one person. It can mean that he might not be handsome or well educated, but he's the guy all eyes are on in a group setting because he's so funny and such a good storyteller.
I feel that women are at least -later- to take a more active stance and start to make up their mind about men who haven't yet given them much indication of who they are and what's going on in their head. That younger girls tend to be more passive and already kind of overwhelmed with the guys that ask for their attention (whether out of real interest or for the sake of a female audience), whereas their male age peers are so hormonal and bewitched by the idea of being with a woman that even the most quiet and mousy girl can have something appealing.

Once again, this is even much more subjective than the post you replied to, I'm just saying it for the sake of airing my thoughts on this. I have little experience about marriage partners but yeah, it's not for nothing that the man is traditionally the one who proposes.

>>17604633
There's nothing bad in being subjective as long as the reader can distinguish your intention and your statement. In my opinion most men fail in their comprehension of looking out for a mentally mature partner. Girls begin in their youth to look out for mature boys, because they feel, that their generation is to childish. The ones that have suffer under that will likely become sad and loyal fags like /adv users (sorry my life is not better). The desire to impress such girls is what keeps them away from getting a partner, while their thinking is much more mature and would be a better fit with older women, that have set their mind. I mostly agree with your points.

>>17604476
>Ess warned that the robotics will certainly should have some human qualities “to stay clear of ending up being the same with the makers that offer us.”
>will certainly should have
>“Sexbots would certainly constantly be readily available and also can never ever state ‘No’, so dependencies would certainly be very easy to feed."
>would certainly constantly be readily
>Individuals might come to be consumed by their ever before loyal, ever before pleasing sex robotic enthusiasts.
Who the fuck wrote this? Garbage article.