Over on the MGTOW subreddit, the regulars are daydreaming about sexbots. And they can’t seem to decide what excites them more: the prospect of endless on-demand sex with robot super-hotties — or ruining the lives of non-robotic women who won’t be able to compete with the aforementioned robot super-hotties.
It’s really kind of adorable.
Let’s let the MGTOW Nostradamus who calls himself EnterPseudonym explain how it’s all going to go down when the sexbot revolution arrives at last.
Men will be ecstatic to finally have something they can put their penis into that doesn’t talk:
[I]magine that sexbots are a reality. They’re not too expensive maybe $5000. With a decent job and no girl friend you could save up that money within a year. Now you only have to pay electricity to keep her running and maintenance every so often.
Just don’t get her wet! Those things are known to short out.
You don’t have to pay to take her out. You don’t have listen to her nag or bore you with dull conversations. You don’t have to deal with her emotional swings. There are no pregnancy scares.
You should probably clean her once in a while, though.
How can an average woman, who requires tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours in time spent to maintain the relationship, compete against a downloadable Kate Upton who requires a quarter of the maintenance time and money?
But, wait, won’t women be able to buy themselves sexbots as well?
Well, yeah, but women aren’t going to want them, because sexbots can’t provide what women really want: money.
Sexbots aren’t appealing to women because a sexbot is only good for sex and won’t actually be able to provide for a woman.
After the sexbot revolution, the world will be filled with desperate women.
Sexbots will essentially collapse the already ruined market for sex. Women will lose much of their social power, and a social switch might happen where males who haven’t chosen to use sexbots are extremely rare.
And so women will start throwing themselves at any man who will have them.
When 90% of males have dropped out of the market, the 80% of women will be competing for whatever man they can find.
Men who’d been cruelly rejected by real-life women in pre-sexbot days will suddenly find themselves in very high demand.
A former sexbot user, could get tired of his sexbot and want to settle down. He enters a market which is deprived of sperm, and now a man that was ugly, overweight, and typically undesirable before the social collapse, is now part of the top 10% of males. He has his choice with almost any woman. Any woman would choose this “undesirable” man because in fact he is desirable.
They never get tired of this fantasy, do they?
Somehow, though, I suspect that even if 90% of straight men were to take themselves off the market EnterPseudonym would still have trouble convincing women that he was much of a catch.
@Policy of Madness, @Mrs Chad S.
I always want to know what makes people tick. That’s why I read novels and visit therapists. I’ve got lots and lots of theories about various individuals, some of whom I know, some of whom I don’t know — and some of whom are fictional.
That said, the Interwebz is usually not a good place to discuss psychological theories about real people. One person offers her psychological theories and then the conversation veers off into stereotypes and then trolls take over with their totally true facts!!! based on hate.
But behavior? The World Wide Interthingy is perfect for discussions of behavior.
Hmmmm….
I am going to say something I think might be controversial.
Chad Thundercock is our friend. Slut shaming Chad Thundercock = commitment shaming. Slut shaming Stacey Thunderc*nt -= slut shaming.
In Defense of Chad Thundercock:
I have been one of the average uggos who rode the Chad Thundercock carousel and still enjoys that carousel to this day. (This is the only forum I don’t think will shame me for fucking mass quantities of Chad Thundercocks.)
Why did I get to ride the Thundercock carousel so many times??? I aint no Stacy Thundercunt!
I inherited my Mother’s natural sex appeal. She was neither stunning nor a supermodel. Yet, she had this certain sex appeal—you can see it in the photos from the 1960s. I can’t explain it.
These uggos, just like my mother (who was actually a Thundercunt in her area and era), are the WORST thing that ever happened to men.
We are average-looking women who someGOW manage to entice men with a sex appeal that is ephemeral.
That’s why I finally just turned to Chad Thundercock as Intergalactic Freedeom Frighter.
I won’t be snarky about it. (I promise.)
I have a proposal:
What if we were to appropriate the archetypal Chad Thundercock from the Manosphere?
The three laws of Chad Thundercock:
1) You will never be as good as Chad Thundercock
2) Chad Thundercock gets all the sex he wants
3) Chad Thundercock has no weaknesses
I think we need to appropriate Chad Thundercock. Chad is not a bad guy. Chad Thundercock is simply the guy who uses his physical and charismatic advantages to get a lot of p*ssy.
Does that make him bad?? Not in my book.
It’s only when he tries to mess with people psychologically, and those who are too young to know any different, that he becomes a Black Hat. (PUA, etc…)
A true Chad Thundercock is not a PUA.
PUAs are always on the move and sometimes masquerade as a Chad Thundercock.
@Policy of Madness:
In no way was I empathizing with the manosphere! I may be able to sympathize, but that’s it. I was worried it might come off as excusing them. My references to going absolutely logic bonkers a la Speedy from Runaround was meant to diffuse any inkling I was feeling anything more than contempt for those guys.
I was kidding about needing some help not going logic bonkers. Thanks everyone from We Hunted the Mammoth! (But it actually soothes me too. :-))
I also think I might have a weird, but interesting view about Chad Thundercock.
Anyhoo–my post about trying to logic out the logic in the sexbot post was not meant to empathize with the manosphere. I just think they are clearly fail at self reflection. (I know, I know–I’m being Captain Obvious–I’m just in that fresh-out-of the-box WTF?? stage.)
@Mrs. Chad
Nothing wrong with empathizing with anyone. Empathy is one of the defining characteristics of the human species, one not shared with the vast majority of non-human animals. And you are allowed to feel whatever it is that you feel. I would never try to police someone’s feelings or tell them they are being stupid for engaging in a basic human trait.
What I am saying is that trying to get to the bottom of what is in someone’s true inner heart is pointless and can lead to bad places. You can never know the inner life of another human being, so we need to take other people at their words when they tell us about their inner lives. Speculating that they are really something different from what they claim to be doesn’t get us anywhere, and it’s second-guessing what another person tells us about themselves.
However, we can, and should, criticize someone’s actions. If you tell me that you love cats but I see you kicking a cat, I can speculate that you lied to me about your love of cats, but that doesn’t help anything. Maybe you really do think that you love cats, and getting into an argument with you where you feel like you need to defend your own model about yourself isn’t going to stop you from kicking more cats in the future. What I can usefully criticize is what you did to that cat. You can deny that you hate cats and I have no proof of what I think is in your heart, but you can’t deny what you did to that cat without compounding your bad actions by trying to gaslight me.
Trying to figure out what is in another person’s heart – and especially when we must presume in the process that the person is lying to us about something only they can perceive – doesn’t serve any purpose beyond giving us some tools to psychoanalyze that individual. Then the temptation to do that analysis becomes pretty powerful. So not only is it not useful to do it, it can lead us to taking a bad action of our own. You can empathize with another person just on the basis of that person being a human being, without knowing about their tragic unfulfilled needs, and that makes you a finer individual than most.
I wrote a big comment about how analysis of motivation can be important, so long as it’s done carefully so as to not harm anyone or overshadow the hurt that’s been caused by terrible actions. Then I deleted it, cause it was too wordy and blathery, as usual.
The TL;DR of it was that PoM is right in that it’s the action that’s important, but I disagree when they say that digging into the motivation behind it is useless. It’s very useful – provided that it’s done right. Most of those efforts that I’ve seen turn into searches for “what story of their life makes me feel the best” if it isn’t done with very careful attention and a whole lot of humility for the complexity of motivation.
I especially like this part:
This is so incredibly true. It’s important to remember that people lie to themselves about themselves, but it’s also important to remember that we don’t have a window in to see the actual truth.
Anyways, yeah, I think there’s use in that sort of motivation-searching, but it’s more a self-improvement exercise than it is a rhetorical tactic. It’s an extension of the principle of charity.
Holy shit this is a long post. I need to post something long because I want to let you WHTM people see me. (OBTW, Axe!! Hi!! You’ve given me such a warmy, warm welcome! Me likes!)
Please, ya’ll don’t see me as some arrogant OT thread derailer. You could see me as more like a puppy who is all wiggly and excited about meeting new friends and piddling on the floor out of excitement.
When I wrote the message about breaking down the logic in the sexbot post, I was just having my first COCK-tail of the night. By the time I responded to Political Madness and wrote the thing about Chad Thundercock, I was a little, well a lot, buzzed. Oopsie. *shame face*
I have been known to drunk post from time to time, and ummm, I am a silly drunk. Better than being an angry drunk. I tend to get less logical and coherent when imbibing, but my friends tend to enjoy my silliness. I’m one of those, “I love you, maaaaaaannnnn….” kind of drunks.
Anyway, I wanted to respond a bit further about the empathy/sympathy thing for the Manosphere. I absolutely see what Political Madness is saying, and I think I should have said I can “empathize” with these men, rather than sympathize. I said the opposite of what I meant.
Now, when I say I can empathize with them, it is very much tied to a particular type of misandering I take great pleasure in. It’s something I mastered by the time I was about 25 (I’m 43 now) and have only been able to snare bigger and bigger game as I’ve gotten older. I’ve recently been having a moral and ethical dilemma about this game I play with misogynists in the “meat space,” so Political Madness’s post gave me the opportunity to really come to a conclusion on whether I am doing something unethical.
A bit of background to put my favorite form of misandering (counter strike to PUA game) into context
I’d say I became a feminist around the time I was in third grade. This was around the time I became aware of sexism and that I was somehow less of a person because I didn’t have a penis. This was absolutely outrageous to me. I was also a girl who got bullied a lot in school for not being what boys like to look at (i.e., chubby girl). By middle school, I was wearing leather jackets, sporting a green dreadlock mohawk, and donning steel-toed Doc Martins. And yes, I have tattoos.
By the time I was in my late teens, I softened my look, grew my hair out and started slimming down. I began to become the kind of girl boys like to look at—so, that’s when I started oppressing them. Thing is, I was also unprepared for the amount of PUAs and angry men who would approach me and try to mess with my head.
To make a long story short, I am a very quick study and was learning how to run countergame to the PUA “game” by the time I was 22. Had it down pat by 25. This was before the internet, so I learned the PUA game through observation and discovery. These guys became a logic puzzle to me. (I do really enjoy solving logic problems, which is probably why I ended up studying linguistics.)
So, around 22 I started hiding my being a feminist and also transforming my outward appearance into the closest thing I can be genetically to the kind of object men like to look at. For two reasons: 1) I wanted to attract as many potential mates (and by “mate” I DO mean sex partner) as possible, 2) I realized that looking like the typical easy target for PUAs/misogynists put me in an excellent position to fuck with their heads.
Why I play this game
Now, why would I want to fuck with their heads? Well, I have always been the kind of person who fights for the underdog. In this case, I see women who are less suspecting, maybe less intelligent, or too young and inexperienced to know the difference (which I once was) as the underdog. I see my game as upping the ante on the risks of playing the PUA game on women.
This is where my empathy comes in. I empathize with them to put myself in their shoes. The more I can see things from their perspective, the more I can do a mind fuck on them. This is where I am conflicted ethically. Am I doing something unethical?
I say, “No.” And here’s why:
There is a difference between a regular guy who is trying to flirt with me and a PUA. A regular non-PUA who is hitting on me, but I am not interested, does not get the mind fuck treatment. Instead, I give him a very gentle let down and he fades out. The non-PUA I AM interested in just might get lucky!! 😀 (Already told ya’ll that I cock-a-doodly-do enjoy that cock carousel.)
It’s the guy who ignores my rebuffs to his advances and starts pulling PUA tactics on me that gets the mind fuck treatment. He’s the guy who ignores my trying to shake him off gently and then pulls a “neg” on me. Once the “neg” happens, my inner Maneater wakes up and starts listening. I will ignore the first neg and let him off the hook by not giving him positive responses. If he pulls a second move to try to initiate “approval-seeking” behavior from me, I will still let it go and continue to try to shake him off gently. If he pulls a THIRD tactical PUA move, the gloves come off, and my claws come out.
Now, getting mad at him and calling him a jerk will only feed his ego and prove women are just assholes who are out to humiliate men who approach them. So, I do not indicate that the gloves have come off. Instead, I start doing approval seeking behavior. (Sneaky? Yes. But isn’t he being sneaky? Yes.) This approval-seeking behavior also serves as a “checks and balances” move. If he becomes “embiggened” or emboldened by my approval seeking behavior, he is a confirmed POS PUA.
Am I doing something unethical by pretending the PUA’s tactics are working on me? Is it wrong of me to pretend to seek his approval and let him push into my boundaries? (Except in my game, he’s not pushing into my boundaries at all. I am only giving him outward indication that what he is doing is working.) For example, an approval-seeking move I use is giving a hurt facial expression when he “negs” me and also giving him submissive body language, e.g., bowing my head down. Then I will start being more responsive to talking to him. Am I a big bad meanie for this?? I mean, I already let him off the hook twice before engaging in the game.
Then, as he tries to push further into my boundaries by being overly aggressive with touching me and making sexual innuendos, I’ll switch from approval seeking behavior to getting a bit “riddler” with him. Meaning, I start setting logic traps in our conversation and giving him intermittent quick “flashes” of being onto his game. But I always follow the quick “flash” with some more approval-seeking behavior. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This is meant to confuse him. [Ha! I got this one in the bag! Wait? What did she just say? Oh, she’s seeking my approval again! It’s working!] Let’s call it what it is: counter striking with “dread.” Basically I run hot and then send a very quick cold flash. Then I go back to seeming like I’m running hot.
This game can go on for a half hour, a few hours or sometimes longer (basically as long as I am amused). My end game entails me revealing the game to him and his face dropping. He will normally voluntarily get up and leave me alone. In some cases, he will turn around and try to get me to seek HIS approval, which is a delicious temptation, but the game is already over. Check mate.
In my opinion, PUAs don’t have much risk in playing the games they play. If he is successful, he has taken advantage of someone who didn’t know any better. No sport in that. (IMO, also why they only like females between the ages of 16-25.) If he is unsuccessful, the woman sees right through him and tells him to “beat it.” I happen to be a woman who sees through it and delights in running countergame. I think they expect ALL women who see through it to simply walk away. I don’t. I play fuckin’ hardball.
That hilarious post on WHTM about the Red Pills figuring out that women read the internet and will avoid you if they know you are a Red Pill is testament to their ignorance of women who “know.” It seems to me the PUA game is a low-risk game for them if the savvy women will simply avoid them. It’s also funny that they seem to think women didn’t know about this shit before the internet came along.
I mastered the counterstrike game before the internet became ubiquitous. As such, when really young PUAs try to run game on me, I’ll play for about 10 minutes and cut him loose by physically removing myself from his vicinity. There’s no sport in me running countergame on an inexperienced PUA. I like to play with the more dangerous ones, and since I am older now, the more dangerous ones tend to be older, experienced, and highly dangerous misogynists.
Sorry this post is so long. I wanted to clarify how I “empathize” with them. I mean, if someone just straight up punches me in the head out of the blue, I can see that they must be having some sort of anger issue or internal struggle. That said, I’m not going to just let someone punch me in the head because they are having some internal problem. Guaran-motherfuckin’-teed I’ll strike back.
In summary: I like to discover what makes an individual misogynist tick and then strike him right in his weakest spots. I spend time finding weak spots in his psyche, which is why I allow the persistent PUA to engage in conversation with me and appear to let him push through my boundaries. (This is why empathy is an important tactic for me.) The approval-seeking behavior I do is meant to make him reveal more of himself to me.
All I gotta say is: Don’t hate the playah. Hate the game. 😉
All jokes and snark aside: I invite opinions on whether or not I am being unethical. I seem to have justified a form of PUA countergame in my own head, and I really am struggling with whether or not I’m justified in this particular form of delicious, delectable misandering. (It is my heroin/heroine.)
Soooorrry!!!! (Policy of Madness = Political Madness in my posts)
Let (((Policy of Madness))) echo throughout all intergalactic space!
If PoM is a cishet male, he gets an automagical, matriarchy-issued pussy magnet.
And believe me, that magnet is pretty hardcore.
If PoM is a woman, well she just gets to have ownership over her own body.
Totes equal deal.
Sorry about that Policy of Madness.
Witness me!!!
?I’m a friendly guy… Until I’m not ?
Summat of a pastime amongst some of our commenters. Know your limits is all, eh? And maybe consider backing away from the keyboard when you’ve had more than a few. Just a suggestion 🙂
Re: the board flip
So basically, you go out lookin for lovin (?), and if an asshole shows up to hurt you (PUA tactics are meant to hurt) you make fun of em. Hurt their pride a bit. I don’t really see the moral failing on your part. If you were hunting for randos to humiliate, there’d be an issue. But it seems like you’re defending yourself
A disclaimer tho. I’m not the best moral compass. More of a GPS (SatNav). I’ll get you where you need to go. Usually. Don’t trust me to avoid every traffic jam. This is a bit of a jam. Don’t take my word for it is the point. Listen to other people’s answers (if they wish to offer them), and keep thinking about this yourself. Unexamined life, blah blah blah
Axe:
I DON’T go out lookin’ for lovin’. I go out asking for it. 🙂
A sloot goes out asking for “rape” by dressing in a way that circumscribes her body.
Bitch asked for it.
I have this way of dressing that makes me untouchable. I wear things that are hyperfeminine in a non-slutty and non-ironic way.
I chum the water, as it were. 🙂
@Mrs. Chad
Hmmm, I’m not sure what to think. On the one hand, I think if behavior is wrong when they do it, it’s wrong to do it back. On the other hand, you’re just allowing them to do this to themselves. I’m undecided, but I’ll probably be chewing on this in the back of my mind until well after the appropriate window for commenting on it has passed.
I did want to note that gender is not a binary and so there are more than 2 possibilities for PoM’s gender. I believe they are a woman, though. I hope I’m not wrong on that.
Also, Axe, I meant to say “Hey” to you.
I did totally mean a nice and thoughtful “howdy” to you.
Um. Are you drunk posting? Because this shit isn’t funny even if I assume all the heavy sarcasm I can imagine, and I can imagine a lot of it.
Hey, Kupo
You did just run some of my own logic back on me. I really am trying to decide how I feel about this.
You said, “you’re just allowing them to do this to themselves…”
In the context you spoke of, I agree.
I don’t think I’m right. Yet I DID argue for me being right in that long post.
I am in a huge grey area about this. I am welcome to discussion.
@Ms Chad
Aight, you’re snarky. I get it, chill…
Hello again, Kupo,
No. I’m not drunk posting.
I am seeing things from the opposite point of view, but also seeing things from my point of view. It is a form of snark I use. I DO NOT think it is OK to rape a woman based on dress.
However, I know how to use different forms of dress to elicit different responses.
Does this answer your question? And do I seem like a jerk? (I don’t want to.)
Hey, Axe. I think you’re great. I totally am a snark meister, and I have seen this forum as a great place to be snarky.
I also think the people here are good people I would get along with, including you.
Hope we can sniff FUCKING SCENTED CANDLES together sometime.
Nope. Not buying one word of this, Mrs. Chad Skyboomrooster.
I think you’re playing a game right now.
*Walks away*
@Mrs. Chad Skyboomrooster
Hello and welcome in
re: playing head games with PUAs, you’re on solid ground there as far as I can see
in general, you may want to watch either your word choice or your punctuation, such that you make it clear when you are speaking for yourself vs. when you are speaking in the voice of a generic PUA, which, if I am reading you correctly, is what you were intending to do in the portion kupo quoted.
EDIT due to a post made while I was writing mine.
@Axe
You certainly can be. =^_^=
You seem pretty solid on that front to me.
(If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be finding me so friendly)
@Mrs Chad
Very much
If we wanted to talk to a PUA, we’d invite some. We’re all incredibly aware of their point of view by now. Other than the snark, what is your point of view? I have no idea. You’re funny sometimes, but that’s all I know. Scildfreja, kupo, PoM, there’s something beyond the sarcasm and PUA appropriation. Who are you? Don’t tell me all at once. Don’t tell me at all. Show me. Why don’t we start with an apology to kupo for your comment.
And so help me if you fuck that up…
We’ll see
@Peevee
Possible. Plausible. I’ll take the bet anyway. What do I got to lose?
ETA: @Dali
We’ll be butting heads again in no time 🙂
OK. I know I could seem like a jerk.
Let me put it in a Thundercat analogy.
Mumm-ra hates Thundercats. But Mumm-ra always attacks the Thundercats.
The Thundercats try to live a peaceful life. Mumm-ra attacks them, and they defend themselves–even by violence.
Are the Thundercats bad guys??
BTW: In Mumm-ra’s perspcetive, the bad guys are the Thundercats.
Axecaliber:
Eh…I may be wrong. I dunno, though.
I’m just not sure where any of this is going.
@Axe
Well sure, but there’s no malice in it. How else am I supposed to keep my wits sharp and my tongue* supple?
*Technically I use my fingers, but metaphor places linguistic skills firmly in the mouth.
There is an interesting philosophical detail embedded here.
It can be said that one cannot disentangle the tool or technology from the root of its creation. To use the methods of the PUA is to take some seed of their beliefs into your own. The important detail which would answer your question of “Am I being bad?” can be found in what that seed is, and what it will grow into.
(Also I’m dreadfully sick and can probably be safely ignored right now!)
Scilfreda:
I DID actively invite people to tell me their true thoughts on my misandering. Apparently it is not OK here.
You guys don’t need to hide what you think.
Your:
“It can be said that one cannot disentangle the tool or technology from the root of its creation. To use the methods of the PUA is to take some seed of their beliefs into your own. The important detail which would answer your question of “Am I being bad?” can be found in what that seed is, and what it will grow into.”
Thanks, Scilfreda.
I DO take this into account. I love your words
For example, the “local’ movement became a “thing” in the USA. Then, the corporate world turned it into supporting independent business as a “thing” that represented Target and Walmart. They tried to appropriate “local” to mean any store that was not online or not getting goods from far away. Fuck. We all know big chains rely on supply chains far removed from us.
I am proposing using using an example like appropriating a big concept from the Manosphere: Chad Thundercock.