Oh dear. Our friends the Men’s Rights Redditors have discovered Mr.Ian Ironwood’s little treatise on sexbots. While some are a bit skeptical about the reality of the (non-existent) Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act — more skeptical, anyway, than Ironwood or Vox Day before him — this doesn’t stop the regulars from offering all sorts of distressing and/or hilarious opinions on the subject.
For example, OuiCrudites suggests that women have made sexbots inevitable by generally being such a pain in the ass, and MaunaLoona compares female sexuality to the railroad monopolies of the 19th century:
In a later comment, OuiC elaborates on his “most women are shitty” thesis:
MaunaLoona, meanwhile, agrees with Ironwood that developing the AI for sexbots won’t be a big challenge, because the average American woman is dumb and has a terrible personality.
A Canadian Redditor steps in to point out that the alleged “legislation” isn’t real. Oh, and to suggest that many “females” can’t think rationally.
Geigerwasright concludes that men will find sexbots preferable to women because the women of today aren’t providing them with “love, loyalty [or] kindness.”
So watch out, ladies! Unless you clean up your act, and quick, the good men of the Men’s Rights subreddit will abandon you en masse in favor of sex with inanimate objects that pretend to like them.
And this is apparently supposed to be a bad thing for women.
Clauderoughly postulates that sexbots for women will never be that popular, because what women really want is to get pregnant, so they can live the good life off of child support:
That’s a bit weird, as all the women I’ve had sex with have seemed quite interested not getting pregnant from sex. Indeed, some have had devices inserted into their bodies by doctors to prevent such an occurence.
The world that MRAs live in is a strange and scary place. I prefer the real world. It’s much cheerier.
NOTE: The horrible picture at the top of this post was borrowed from Craftastrophe.