Monday, January 14, 2013

The feminist fear of competition

This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services.  Moreover, it is proof that their "pursuit for gender equality" is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom.
Following the recent Ontario/Canada Roundtable on Gender Equality, the below provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

…The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit.  But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.

Imagine the feminist outrage if men decided to follow their example and outlaw vibrators due their negative impact on the pursuit for gender equality and the way they tend to objectify men as sexual objects....  And if they're afraid of sexbots, just wait until artificial wombs become a reality, as they almost certainly will in time.

One can make a reasonable case against sexbots and artificial wombs, of course, one simply can't do it from the feminist perspective.  That is because it is also the case against abortion, artificial birth control, and casual sex.  As is often the case, the short-sighted advocates of "progress" have completely failed to foresee the logical, indeed, the inevitable, consequences.

UPDATE: Those who are pointing out that "the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act" isn't presently a prospective law before the Canadian parliament are completely missing the point.  It is obvious it isn't "real"; the Canadian government no more has a Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence than the Obama administration is really building a Death Star with his campaign logo in the bowl.  It does, however, have a "Minister of State (Status of Women)"; thus showing it's not quite as far off-base as one might wish.

But there was a time, only a few months ago, when VAWA was a real law and was actually in effect for 18 years.  As crazy as it sounds, an eventual debate on the legality of sexbots for male use is almost inevitable, because there is nothing too nonsensical to be utilized in defense of the female imperative.  Sexbots strike at the very heart of the female imperative; it is not an accident that the subject is beginning to arise now, even if only in a theoretical manner.

Indeed, the very fact that the fictitious ban proposed was related to nonexistent sexbots not being used by men rather than real vibrators actually being used by women alone suffices to highlight the relevant point here.  The interesting aspect isn't the fact or fiction of the proposed law, but rather, the basis of the reasoning being used to hypothetically justify it.

84 comments:

Jeigh Di said...

"The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency..."

Does this mean there will be state run facilities for such activities? I didn't even know they existed outside of cheesy movies.

grey_whiskers said...

@Vox -- they actually, literally, word-for-word have it backwords. Having a sexbot does not lead to "treating a woman like an object" -- it is (precisely and accurately) "treating an object like a woman."
Incidentally -- what is the politically correct action which is recommended instead of "objectification" anyway? Would it be "subjectification"? And does that mean making women the subject rather than the object, does it mean making women subject to mean, or does it mean becoming subject to women's whims?

grey_whiskers said...

Lack of coffee... "subject to mean" should be "subject to men"

dannyfrom504 said...

dammit. i was about to say they should ban vibrators as well then.

but what's to stop a woman from using a sexbot. eqality for all. make a robo-dude with a pneumatic hog. i'm fine with that if i get silence and being left alone by my robo-babe after i blankly jackhammer it for 30 seconds.

PVW said...

Wow, I have no words...this sounds like something out of science fiction.

VD: "One can make a reasonable case against sexbots and artificial wombs, of course, one simply can't do it from the feminist perspective. That is because it is also the case against abortion, artificial birth control, and casual sex."

Me: Because we would have to engage then in a discussion of human dignity, which would entail discussing those practices, policies and feminist perspectives that have "unduly emphasize[d] the objectification of women as sexual objects."

tz said...

I was waiting for the comment about illegal immigrants (white slavery), and or off-shoring as certain tours of the developing world.

Replacing human trafficing with robots? No mr customs guy, those are just random servos and supporting electronics.

Adds new meaning to 'exploit'

OCS said...

Well, we already have some Japanese men marrying characters from a Nintendo DS game (just Google "Love Plus DS marriage") so why the hell not. Oh, and blow-up dolls, does that not count as "objectifying womyn"? Why not ban that? Why is Canada trying to out-swede everyone else?

Man, look at all those questions...

taterearl said...

Sometimes when I wake up the words of one Professor Farnsworth from Futurama ring through my head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mLjKI968g

stg58/Animal Mother said...

Assassin sexbots!

Celebrity sexbots!

Bisexual sexbots!

Josh said...

This reminds me of the feminist arguments against male birth control (and vasectomy, for the more radical feminists), that it infringes on women's reproductive rights.

rycamor said...

Canada actually has a Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence? This country needs to disband out of sheer embarrassment. I propose they change it to a more efficient name: Ministry of Robots or Neurosimulators (MORON).

CrisisEraDynamo said...

As if I needed any more convincing that feminists hate male sexuality. To them, only female sexuality should be liberated while (straight) male sexuality should be attacked and repressed as much as possible.

Of course, some feminist will see this post and say that I support legalizing rape. No, I do not support legalizing rape, I support men being able to get sexual gratification in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, while feminists want to ban it precisely because it gratifies males.

Sexbots will be the male Pill in terms of its effects on the sexual marketplace.

mr. wavevector said...

"may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects"

May replace women with sexual objects is more like it.

The driving force for this sexbot prohibition is one element of the feminine imperative - female resource appropriation. Female resource appropriation occurs when females claim or take male generated resources for their own use, often through the use of some moral artifice to coerce male compliance. "Gender equality" is the primary moral artifice used today to appropriate male resources. Men generate more resources than women; women use "gender equality" to force the redistribution of resources from men to women.

What does sexbot prohibition have to do with female resource appropriation? Even feminists understand at some level that there has to be some appearance of an exchange in their appropriation - that male resistance is inevitable if women give absolutely nothing in exchange for the resources they take. If the value of sex is undermined by sexbots, they will have nothing to give, and their system of appropriating male resources in the name of "equality" will break down.

Jimmy said...

Shouldn't they ban Lesbians? Women treating a woman like a man.

Anonymous said...

@CrisisEraDynamo,

"Of course, some feminist will see this post and say that I support legalizing rape."

Rape - another excellent argument against sexbots. Sexbots can't consent, therefore sex with them is rape.

"I support men being able to get sexual gratification in a way that doesn't hurt anyone"

Feminist response: You're a robot rapist!

Daniel said...

Still, they'll have to legalize the gay sexbots because what are they, homophobes?

The Observer said...

Remember how well Prohibition worked, everyone?

If this goes through, we'll have the sexual equivalent of speakeasies popping up. Why not go the whole hog and smuggle sexbots by the boatload?

Feh said...

"sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects."

They could ban fully human stay-at-home wives/moms on exactly the same grounds.

The Aloof Guy said...

Anyone have a link to an actual bill?

If you're going to call something the So And So Act, that means there's a version of it somewhere on a government server.

DaveD said...

Are you sure this isn't something from The Onion?

DD

alexamenos said...

I want a sex-bot that comes armed with an AR-15. Not only because the entire Left will hate it, but also....well for reasons that'd be TMI.

mmaier2112@work said...

Alex, I'm thinking that might promote corrosion on your AR.

Bob Wallace said...

Ezra Pound wrote that artists are the antenna of the human race.

I am reminded of the movie "Serenity," in which a computer geek marries his sexbot. Joss Whedon was seeing the future.

He's telling us that Aspergers-type guys, who aren't attractive to almost all women, are going to buy sexbots.

The guy in the movie was also very much into fantasy violence.

ajw308 said...

Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence and Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act
God, those sound like elements of a bad sci-fi movie, not just any bad sci-fi, but something written for Mystery Science Theater 3001.

Assassin sexbots!
I think Mr. stg58 and I have been reading the same stuff...



stg58/Animal Mother said...

When will the Victoria Secret collection come out?

Anonymous said...

I'll try to predict what they will get in response for that - Canadian emirate and Sharia law. And they deserve it.

Ian Ironwood said...

Brilliant. Riffed on it here: http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2013/01/i-for-one-will-welcome-our-new-sexbot.html

Signe said...

Great, now the competition includes robot cows as well as rental cows, village cows, and photoshopped cows? God, the milk market is getting out of hand...

I begin to feel psychotically grateful to the man I've started seeing. He totally doesn't need me.

Jehu said...

Feminism isn't about reasonable cases. It's about who...whom.
Women collectively need to be knocked off the moral pedestal they're placed on. They're no better than men morally, and honestly, were they to have the same levels of physical capability, they'd probably be a lot worse. Basides, they're happier once you dethrone them.

Anonymous said...

I for one welcome suppression of sexbot overlords. This legislation should be passed with all haste. And when it firmly cemented as law, quietly amended such that vibrators are redefined as "sexbots".

Feminists should get what they ask for. Good and hard, too...


Borderline Anonymous

Trust said...

This is just the latest in a long line of cases where women assign themselves the role of oppressed at the precise moment they are being the oppressor.

Ontario/Canada Roundtable on Gender Equality said...

may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects

Hey, we're all for objectifying women insofar as they're due, but objectifying an object objectifies them too much!

Whoah, vertigo. Gotta sit down...

Trust said...

Feminists are so worried about women being regarded as sexual objects, but have no problem regarding (and legally enslaving) men as financial objects.

nightskyradio.com said...

Part of my comment at The Woman and the Dragon on the subject -

"I like how they’re calling the legislation the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act. They’re personalizing the impersonal. giving de facto legitimacy to it (or would it be de jure? This is law they’re talking about)."

My off-the-rails description of how it might go from here -

http://nightskyradio.com/2013/01/12/the-world-thats-coming/

Josh - it's not impossible that if sexbots take off, a small number of feminists might try aruging "are actually taking choice away from women, by denying them the opportunity to become stay-at-home wives and mothers. Where have all the fair-to-middling men gone?"

Anonymous said...

This "proposed legislation" was a law school assignment for a class. In other words: not real.

Gullibility is not reasonable.

Doom said...

While there isn't a thing to be agreed about in the content, put into context and, yeah, okay. It is fun watching people seeing that they will be forced to eat gruel, when they have had that mandated for everyone else. I, personally, would relinquish my right to sexbots... at the cost of vibrators and dildos. Barring that, I guess I would have to fight for "equal rights". Even if they are rights I would never employ. At least if I were secular.

I am surprised, with the plethora of unused fertilized eggs/embryos, that someone, somewhere, hasn't created an artificial womb, if just to practice abortions, if adoptions are much more lucrative without having to rent space for the cow, with feed, clothing, fashion magazines, and whatever else she might need and want, along with the risk of her deciding against handing the child over.

Anonymous said...

You guys know that this isn't real right

Anonymous said...

No. They don't know that it's not real.

So Vox et Co. provide sane people with entertainment again. We all win!

Google is your friend said...

lol, dumbarses.

Smile, you're all famous! said...

My favourite bit about this whole thing is that, while these dudes are up in arms about the evil feminists trying to take away their (yet to be invented) sexy robots, the real enemy of their sexual freedom is standing right in front of them. Quoth Vox Day:

"One can make a reasonable case against sexbots...it is also the case against...artificial birth control, and casual sex..."

And unlike the Canadian Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence (*snicker*), the ideology/religion where Vox gets his stupid ideas from is actually real.

Dex Banner said...

Atychiphobia (from the Greek phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear" and ... the possibility of failure and competition; and in an inherently competitive society, ...

The Observer said...

It doesn't matter whether it's real or just practice; we all know that's how they'd behave when the real thing does arrive on the market. Poe's Law, et al.

Anonymous said...

ah yes of course and the rumored jurassic park iv in which they outfit dinosaur commandos with guns is really how the government will behave once the real thing arrives on the market

Harold said...

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), such a ban wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the U.S. Be really tough to ban sex with sexbots and leave Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) standing.

Anonymous said...

Feminism, far from helping women, has actually exposed the fundamental inferiority of women (moral, intellectual, economic) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism.

In the old days, women were told to be modest and keep their mouths shut, so that everyone assume they were angels of lovely nobility. Now that feminism has taught women to loudly speak their mind, and to enter situations they are ill-suited for, the limitations of women are thus heavily exposed.

Women had it a lot better when they were restricted.

Anonymous said...

You will notice that no women who would rate higher than a 7 out of 10 in appearance..... is at all worried about sexbots.

Much for the same reasons that no woman higher than a 7 ever worries about some supposed rape epidemic that is ongoing, even though an attractive woman would presumably be more at risk.

Ugly women like to pretend they are attractive enough for these issues to affect them. Hence the push by them (but not attractive women) to both ban sexbots and claim that rape is rampant.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of idealism vs. facts- I wonder how deeply the future development of sexbots will put a dent in the imaginary, inflated statistics about unreported rape that the feminists and manginas keep trotting out in their own self-righteous, self-pleasuring version of artificial reality.

Anonymous said...

oops...just realized I basically said the same thing as the guy before me did

Anonymous said...

I'd take a sexbot over a woman anyday.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

"Mr Treehorn treats objects like women, man."
--The Dude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SBQQVv_e8U

Johnycomelately said...

I wonder if they'll go after sex bot abuse?

You can bet your bottom dollar that they'll create a law, 'vicarious abuse.'

Every repost donates 5c to the Fund for Vox Day's Special Private Time Technology said...

The "Observer" writes: "It doesn't matter whether it's real ... we all know that's how they'd behave when the real thing does arrive on the market"

lol. Yeah, that's why the Canadian Ministry of Sex Toys is drafting legislation to outlaw fleshlights as we speak.

(To your keyboards, Men, we must blog about this! Our freedom to masturbate depends upon it!)

The Observer said...

@Harold:

Now that's an interesting case. Thanks for pointing it out.

odah said...

the ministry of robot was disbanded when the feminists where informed that robot men would be the perfect men for them ..they fully obey orders .. they never complain ... and with the most feminist friendly model.. the woman can actually remove the robots penis and carry it around in her purse ..

Patsplace said...

...and the ultimate female currency is devalued. Pity!!

Anonymous said...

DannyFrom504,

Oh to be 15 and playing RPG again, as "Blanky Jackhammer" would be an awesome character name.

As for banning vibrators, do we really want a lot of 300 pound aging feminists seeking gratification and having no way to provide for it? We'd be praying for a zombie pandemic in comparison. It's not that they would attack us physically, just that the level of whiny bitching and power grabs would be far worse than they already are. Between affirmative action and this "no one dated me in high school so I got an MBA so I could order men around" attitude, being fired for being a white person with a penis would be even worse than it is now.

Anonymous said...

"Minister of State (Status of Women)" is totally almost the same as a "Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence," and the arguments of "some random law student" are definitely the same as those of "every feminist." Well done, Vox.

Signe said...

You will notice that no women who would rate higher than a 7 out of 10 in appearance..... is at all worried about sexbots...

Ugly women like to pretend they are attractive enough for these issues to affect them.


Yes, and beta men like to pretend they're attractive enough that they deserve 7's or better.

Oh look, stereotypes!

Anonymous said...

How could somebody "mounted on the gleaming opulent horse of superior Aryan intellect" (thanks for the laugh, Vox) be taken in so crudely?

Oh, wait--

VD said...

"Minister of State (Status of Women)" is totally almost the same as a "Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence," and the arguments of "some random law student" are definitely the same as those of "every feminist."

Whoosh.... Do you honestly believe that feminists won't be agitating to ban sexbots and actively shame men who make use of them once they become available at reasonable prices?

Grackle said...

"Whoosh.... Do you honestly believe that feminists won't be agitating to ban sexbots and actively shame men who make use of them once they become available at reasonable prices?"

Uh, no, because they have real things to deal with that actually matter. You guys are a laugh riot--please continue to make as much a fuss about this as possible. THE FEMINISTS ARE COMING TO TAKE AWAY MY NON-EXISTENT SEXBOTS! (o wait it was a joke and we got fooled) WELL CERTAINLY THE FEMINISTS WILL BE COMING TO TAKE AWAY MY NON-EXISTENT SEXBOTS! Hahahah jesus christ

Signe said...

Uh, no, because they have real things to deal with that actually matter.

Like writing opinion columns for newspapers about how dumb and useless men are?

Anonymous said...

Can't be a ban on it. It would conflict with the Second Law.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

retrophoebia said...

As it has been foreseen... see # 2 in The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I'm one of those icky feminists and I would LOVE the existence of sexbots for anybody who wants them.

Honestly, why do you think feminists would give a rat's ass what sex toy you use? We might even have one of our own.

Go create a DV or rape hotline for men or something actually useful. Seriously, guys. This hysteria and fake bellwethering isn't even "slacktivism."

VD said...

Uh, no, because they have real things to deal with that actually matter.

Such as begging the public to fund your birth control? Although I suppose doing your best to bring Western Civilization down to the grass hut level could be considered a serious matter.

The problem with leftists is they don't understand where wealth comes from. The problem with feminists is they don't understand where civilization comes from.

Anonymous said...

My birth control is paid partially through my insurance premiums which I pay for, and work for my employer for. In other words: not free. I'm lucky in that I don't have the Catholic Church trying to finagle my insurance company to cease doing so.

Which WAS the point Rush Limbaugh and the dittoheads seem to have missed.

And my birth control certainly helps my husband as well, since we don't want any more children, and sterilization is NOT covered by my insurance.

I thought you guys wanted more sex? You seem to have an odd way of going about it, for certain. ;-)

Signe said...

My birth control is paid partially through my insurance premiums which I pay for, and work for my employer for...yada yada grandstanding and having tunnel vision.

Now I know what His Lordship means when he says I'm not seeing the forest for the trees.

But hey, you work for birth control? I can't imagine pricing myself so low that my employer just chucks a couple of condoms at me and calls it even.

SarahsDaughter said...

It gets really difficult to argue with the free birth control crowd when you take a close look at who wants it...

Daft said...

Dude, you can't be that daft. Its a 2 year old fake;


http://manboobz.com/2013/01/14/manosphere-doofuses-duped-again-by-phony-canadian-sexbot-ban/

and

http://manboobz.com/2013/01/15/imaginary-feminists-dont-destroy-ian-ironwoods-sexbot-utopia/

Anonymous said...

So the Boobz are getting worked up – again – over some imaginary “proposed legislation” to ban sexbots. Vox Day, one of the esteemed elder statesmen of the right-wing of the manosphere, has resurrected an urban legend that first fooled his comrades about two years ago, reposting a “statement” of mysterious Canadian origin explaining that

provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.

The main provision of this dastardly Femi-Canadian proposed legislation?

The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.

You may wonder: Why didn’t I read anything in the papers about this Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act? Why haven’t I heard about this Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence?

Well, you guessed it. Because neither of them exist. I looked into this two years ago when the story first, er, broke in the manosphere. There’s no vast feminist conspiracy to deny Canadian men (or, for that matter, women) their still-imaginary sexbots. The “statement” was evidently written as part of a law school class project on law and robotics taught by Prof. Ian Kerr at the University of Ottawa Law School.

If you Google “Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act” or “Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence” you will find that literally the only people talking about this issue are MRAs and PUAs and conspiracy theorists. And some of the more gullible 4channers, though a few of them quickly figured out that the whole thing was fake. (As did the Real Doll enthusiasts.)

Vox Day, who has yet to come to this realization, draws some dire conclusions from this thing that isn’t real, declaring that the

This Canadian attempt to preemptively ban sexbots is an overt confession by feminists of both sexes concerning their belief that women have nothing significant to offer men but sexual services. Moreover, it is proof that their “pursuit for gender equality” is directly and fundamentally opposed to the most basic human freedom. …

One would think that even those only superficially acquainted with human history would realize that attempts to put the technological genie back in the bottle almost always fail, as do attempts to prevent men and women from pursuing pleasure in ways deemed illicit. But then, a near-complete ignorance of human history is required to either be a feminist or possess a genuine belief in the rainbow-tailed unicorn of equality.

Well, not so much. Though Vox proves yet again that there are few people on planet earth as gullible as the manosphere’s pompous philosophers.

NOTE: Vox isn’t the only manospherian up in arms about the evil imaginary sexbot ban; more on this tomorrow.

GOODSTUFF said...

Every year scientists and engineers are making advances in miniaturize sensors but there's one aspect of this phenomenon to which a lot of enlighten people have given a good bit of thought. Is having sex with an ultra-realistic robot hooker cheating? -- http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com/2012/09/is-having-sex-with-robot-cheating.html

Anonymous said...

Here in Canada, the vast majority of people resistant to sex-bots and birth control for men are men. Now that all the gullible people have figured out that the law is not part of reality, and that no one proposed it, perhaps it is time to snap out of your daze. Please, guys who thought this was a feminist plot, keep going your own way. I'm not sure about your relentless need to believe women want you to desire them. It is commonly referred to as "psychological projection". Delusion. Not rational.
Another one: women and men are both shitty and great in their own way. That's how human beings work as a whole. That's why that women score a similar average IQ as men. No better, no worse. Same species. Enough to get the mind blown.
I guess that's what I get for considering the opinion of a racist fuck (I must admit I believe Vox Day is a radfem trying to make MRAs and conservatives, who have legitimate concerns, sound like tinfoil hat bullshit).
Not sure how you all mistake feminists for Santorum so often.

Loki of Asgard said...

Methinks the ladies protest too much.

I always find it entertaining when a simple observation about a woman--or womankind--causes her to spin into a tizzy. The arm flailing is often the only exercise such women receive, so I feel it is a public service.

Well done, Sir Vox. May you troll so successfully for many a day.

Anonymous said...

Keep telling yourself that, "Loki." Maybe one of these days you'll manage to even convince yourself! :-D

Loki of Asgard said...

Keep telling yourself that, "Loki." Maybe one of these days you'll manage to even convince yourself! :-D

Ah, feeling a bit starved for attention, are we? Poor lass, it must be difficult to go through life when so few men will deign to notice you.

Anonymous said...

lol so instead of going 'shit this ain't real, my mistake', you double down on this shit?

Anonymous said...

lolollollolol. I am so embarrassed for you

We Care India said...

There are no two ways that India is the world leader in attracting patients from across the borders for medical treatment in India like Kidney hospital Kolkata, Global hospital India, Escorts hospital, max super speciality hospital, apollo hospital delhi, Apollo goa, brain surgery at best hospitals in India.

Largo said...

Artificial wombs are easy. Artificial placentas are hard.
(So I've been told.)

Wouldn't it be awesome though, to see the reaction that might come from certain circles if a story about "immanent breakthrough in creating artificial placentas" were leaked to the press? :-D

reallove doll said...

To have sex is not illegal now but in some places this is not allowed and taken as illegal. One can make a reasonable case against sexbots and artificial wombs, of course, one simply can't do it from the feminist perspective. That is because it is also the case against abortion, artificial birth control, and casual sex.But now a days no one follow the rule and use the Sex Dolls or Sex toys for sex.To know more about these Love Doll for Sex check this out.

Black Zulu said...

Nice blog, This blog is so informative and easy browsing.
Friends, If you have little of time you may check
Teen XXX.

Ricky Aldiyansyah said...

article highly qualified friend .., thanks for sharing information, if interested please visit my blogs there is a lot of articles that may be read friend, Main thing is that you need to seo work If do seo for my blog http://variasiblogger.blogspot.com/ as my blog have 2000+ visitor and I want 15000

read more :


>> Panduan Tips Trick Mudah SEO dan Desain Terpadu Bagi Pemula
>> Cara Membuat Blog Gratis di Blogger Blogspot
>> Free Responsive Templates Download
>> Download Template Free Jual Beli Online Updates
>> Google Webmaster Tools verification site ownership
>> Cara Mendaftarkan Blogs ke Alexa

Eorthisio Di Livio said...

Today's women are utterly worthless, they offer nothing more than a vagina in exchange for all the efforts done by the man, a friend of mine is working 7 days/week and 12 hours/day to satisfy his wife's shopping madness, I asked him why he doesn't divorce, he said the only reason he stays with her is for their son, he doesn't want him to have a torn up family. Women are fucking useless and I can't wait for sexbots to arrive, of course feminists will mock men for having sex with an object, but that's what women are doing with dildos since decades, and men won't care anymore about those women because they will be sexually satisfied. Unlike women sexbots won't get old and ugly, they won't get fat, they won't throw tantrum for nothing and will be 10/10 looking in the eyes of the man who bought them. With the progresses in A.I and in self-evolving personalities sexbots will even be able to make great conversation partners while most women can't speak about anything except shopping and your common gossips. Sexbots are a reality despite what feminists are trying to convince themselves and others, it's just a question of years before we see the first models and a question of a decade or two until they become human-like, for your information 15 years ago androids didn't exist, now they can walk and move like humans (Asimov), some others can speak and form sentences by themselves, some can react to touches and pokes, some can look at people of things who are moving, ... fear them women because most men won't hesitate to replace you.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.