“Good morning, Barbara,” the soft, pleasant, sexless voice said. “Time to rise and shine.” When there was no reply in sixty seconds, Snoozalarm tried again. “Good morning, Barbara. Please wake up.”To understand what this has to do with Game, read the rest. It is fortunate for men that women have so little interest in technology or there can be little doubt it would soon become a reality.
John got one eye sort of half-open, gave some consideration to waking up, then slid his hand around Barbara’s tummy and snuggled in closer, burying his nose in the back of her neck.
The clock’s voice became a bit more insistent. “This is the third call, Barbara. Please wake up. It is already 7:02.”
Her long, blonde hair smelled wonderful. He ran his fingers across the curve of her hip and down her thigh; she responded with a soft, throaty sigh...
“Barbara Lynn Murphy!” Snoozalarm shrieked. “If you don’t wake up this very insta—”
“I’m awake.” She started disentangling herself from John’s arms and pushing back the blankets.
“Snuggle one more minute?” John suggested.
“Afraid not.” Yawning, she sat up on the edge of the bed and started working the kinks out of her neck.
“It’s a lovely morning, Barbara!” Snoozalarm said cheerfully. “The current temperature is 56, with a predicted high today in the low 70’s. The air pollution index is low to moderate, but there is a 60-percent chance of rain in the late afternoon, so be sure to take your umbrella.” Barbara pulled on her terrycloth robe and wandered into the bathroom.
“The regularly scheduled breakfast for Friday is orange juice, wheat toast, coffee, and mushroom and cheese omelets. Do you approve, Barbara?”
“Yes,” John said.
Thirty seconds later Snoozalarm said, “I’m waiting for your okay on breakfast, Barbara.”
“It’ll be fine,” John said.
Another third seconds later Snoozalarm said, “The regularly scheduled breakfast for Friday is—”
“BARBARA!”
She stepped out of the bathroom. “What’s wrong, honey?” John just scowled and pointed at the alarm clock. “Oh. Yes, that’s fine.”
“Thank you,” Snoozalarm said.
“Barb,” John asked, “how come that thing still won’t take orders from me?”
Sunday, November 17, 2013
The ultimate feminist fantasy
Or, to give it its proper name, pure and unadulterated horror:
67 comments:
It's much easier for men to benefit from simulated replicas of the opposite sex. Women are much too complex for this to become reality.
However, I anticipate that within the next 20 years sexbots or virtual replacements via gaming consoles will cause an uproar amongst women who are wondering why men want nothing to do with them
That just made my day even brighter! First installing the automatic chicken door on the coop so we don't have to rush home to lock out any new neighborhood raccoons that I haven't gotten around to killing yet, now reading this short story.
O.C., that was a great short story.
The way that alarm nags is clearly not sexless. It has 'female' written all over it.
But the house is her lesbian mom?
Great story.
"However, I anticipate that within the next 20 years sexbots or virtual replacements via gaming consoles will cause an uproar amongst women who are wondering why men want nothing to do with them." I didn't realize men were that narcissistic.
Its funny. She buys a sex male android to be passive aggressive to him - so he leaves and she becomes her alpha widow.
The ultimate fantasy.
It is a neat story but I am confident such won't be taking over the world anytime soon. If programmable sentient androids show up little Barbara will be some dictators girl slave then galley wench. The entire world being programmed to serve and obey a woman who produces nothing and has no idea how to maintain it is not a future I take seriously as the present model, which is desperately trying to do this now, is crumbling. Skynet and Terminators will be a reality long before this is.
"I didn't realize men were that narcissistic."
NAMALT.
Would a female sexbot allow it's male owner to repair it, or would it demand that he just sit and listen to an incessant stream of error messages?
Depends on if you paid for the full girlfriend experience.
JCclimber: I would like all details about your automatic chicken door closing apparatus...
saw pics of jill.
i get it now.
also, she's a widow. you guess of which sort.
http://jilldomschot.com/2013/11/14/love-in-the-time-of-nirvana/
"also, she's a widow. you guess of which sort." I don't have a clue what you're talking about, nor do I know what NAMALT means (that somebody used above). All I know is that if men (in general, as used by Chris above) would choose their own fantasy constructs over human women, then they are narcissists. I don't know of very many men who would actually choose that. And what the hell does my pic have to do with anything???
And what the hell does my pic have to do with anything???
He's just trying to get your goat. Ignore it.
I still want to know why he called me a widow. My husband is very much alive and well; I've never been divorced and don't plan to be. I'm with the same man I was with at eighteen.
Perhaps I should have said "twenty years so far" at the end of my little memoir....perhaps I implied that my marriage had ended after twenty years. If so, my husband didn't even get that. No doubt, he's not as jaded as the men here.
No, Gyndroids will come first (one wonders what some of those "never exit their room" nerds in Japan are doing). In Japan they have it right calling working woman "devil woman" (I don't have the MISH/Michael Shedlock link at the moment).
Women would need Gamma geeks and Gamma gunners. I doubt either will be in sufficient supply (and remember the level of creativity of a Gamma is represented by Scalzi. Linux? Linux and his lieutenants. The only tech site I know of that is mainly female is adafruit.com run by a very smart woman entrepreneur. But I think I can count the number of women at tech meetings I've attended over the last few decades on both hands, maybe one.
But you know that women will regret their encounters with the bots, then claim it was not consensual... I'm waiting for one to complain about the iPhone vibrating and trying to invalidate the 55 page EULA.
TZ, will that launch a AGTOW movement?
Jill: "I didn't realize men were that narcissistic."
Men being that narcissistic would be the reaction to WOMEN being that narcissistic, and men being utterly sick of it.
Not that I endorse such things, mind you. But it is a rational reaction (of sorts) to the reality thrust upon us.
@Jill
No he's saying you're an alpha widow.
From what I've read in the manosphere, narcissism is an attractor for women.
I don't know what an alpha widow is, but I do know that narcissism is a turn-off to me. I know it isn't to many women; otherwise, musicians wouldn't have groupies. Those are a specific type of woman, though, as I'm sure you well know.
"Those are a specific type of woman""
Which you probably know is most women, just not you. Aint you a special.
You're not attracted to narcissistic men, you just come where we gather to tell us how much you dont care. Cheers for that.
An alpha widow would basically mean you got a little taste of brutality from Dick and somehow liked it but he dumped you and part of you still pines for that brand of super dominance, minus the abandonment part. I'm not suggesting its true, but that's the basic definition of alpha widow.
My brand of narcissism only works with hippies.
I notice Jill stepped on a mine in a BAD way, and tar and feathers are already out.
So, what people should know is that she's just someone for whom JartStar at Voz Popoli made a book cover, and she probably followed the Alpha Game link here. And has very little knowledge of the Manosphere.
Vox Popoli...
No, I'm not special. I've just never been a groupie, as I imagine many women haven't. You people are a little odd. You throw around odd terms, such as alpha widow, and I'm trying to make sense of it all in context to being called one. You jump to a lot of conclusions. I come here because I'm interested in what Vox writes, as I've been reading his posts on and off for years (at WND mostly). As far as I can tell, he's anything but narcissistic. And, btw, on a cursory search, it would appear an alpha widow is a woman who's had prior sexual partners of an (alpha?) nature before being monogamous. How someone picked that up from my pics and my blog memoir, I have no idea. Jumping to conclusions without fact-checking is anything but rational.
Yes, Markku, that's true. I don't hang out in the manosphere. However, I do read this blog fairly frequently these days.
The reason women complain so much about narcissistic men is that they're the only men that women notice, the only ones they want to date or sleep with. Women don't complain about men who aren't narcissists, because they are beneath their notice and/or safely in their friend zones. They never capture their attention, stand them up for dates, leave them for other women or break their hearts the way narcissists do. Why would women ever complain about them?
They do complain about the non narcissistic ones, a lot. Along the lines of "why cannot he be more of a man?"
How someone picked that up from my pics and my blog memoir, I have no idea. Jumping to conclusions without fact-checking is anything but rational.
The overwhelming majority of the time that a woman leaves a criticism of that sort, it is because she has already encountered the Manosphere somewhere, taken offense at its existence, and now comes to tell us what's what. After all, most of us, myself included, would definitely say yes to sexbots; and the accusation of narcissism, along with superficiality and the rest (somehow I'm shooting blanks here. Too tired right now, I guess. I should remember at least the most common shaming language.) is practically always the initial attack.
So, statistically it was a rational assumption, although it happened to be incorrect.
Dick was the kind of guy who was always friend-zoned because he was insecure and probably mildly autistic, definitely OCD. He was the kind of guy who sent off the creep signals to women. If I hadn't known him since childhood, I wouldn't have gone to a concert with him. I'm not an alpha widow. I didn't even date before I married my husband.
I'm sure someone will list them within the next hour, and I'll be like, how the hell didn't I remember those.
That's a very different and more symathetic portrait of Dick than in your memoir.
It's my understanding that all humans are narcissists on some level, but it's tempered by the golden rule, which is one based off self-interest. I can understand a jaded male in our current society going for a sex-bot, at least for a time. But it isn't a sustaining relationship that offers human female companionship or the result of offspring that comes from female companionship.
But it isn't a sustaining relationship that offers human female companionship or the result of offspring that comes from female companionship.
No, it isn't, but neither does it involve the absolute hell on earth worst case scenario (which isn't even all that rare) that the alternative does. So, the expectation value seems much better than opting for a biological woman.
"That's a very different and more symathetic portrait of Dick than in your memoir."
You're right. I stand corrected. What I said of him is true, but it's not the whole story. Writers are dishonest manipulators, and memoir writers are the worst of the lot.
A historical based view of the future is Soylent Green where women are spoken of as furniture, not this type of feminist wishing about their ideals. History is sexist.
Mina,
OT, but short version: we have a plague of raccoons in our area, I've had to eliminate a number so far already on my property this year, two this week. Since we homeschool, generally someone is home to lock the coop door on the chickens we raise for their eggs. But with the frackin time change, about 2-3 times per week I'm rushing home to try to beat the coons to our chicken coop to lock them.
Rather than try to hack my own, I bought an Ador automatic chicken door to install. It went today but it isn't tracking very well while opening the door.
Women can be the best thing in the world or the worst, often at the same time!
The cover for that short story should feature a gal passionately being embraced by a torso-naked hunk with an electrical cord sticking out of his ass.
Good thread hijack Jill. Nightmare future story about a woman's worst most selfish desires coming true and suddenly its all about ME!!!!! True there was a little poke here and there but you didn't exactly try to avoid the bait.
Awesome, Remo. I didn't put up a link to my blog and call myself confusing names I didn't understand. My original comment had nothing to do with me. I'm sorry somebody decided to psychoanalyze me through my blog and read all manner of nonsense into my original comment. Next time, I won't try to figure out what all your gaming terms is about. This blog often has interesting material, but I prefer Vox Popoli. The people here are a little too counterphobic/reactionary to have conversations with.
The people here are a little too counterphobic/reactionary to have conversations with.
It seems like you don't understand the word "reactionary". It refers to the contents of one's beliefs, not to their debating methods.
The reason I'm alarmed by this is whereas I an unambiguously a reactionary, I see now that this is a linguistic ploy. I can't deny it because it is so obviously true, but the man on the street has a completely different and false idea of what it means.
are my comments being deleted?
One more try: I use reactionary in this way: a descriptor of (or a noun for) somebody who is reacting against the politics or philosophies of the day. People in reactionary mode tend to see the enemy everywhere. Their perspective can be a little tainted. As much as I agree with the politics expressed here, I'm not sure I like the drama. I'm drama-avoidant. I'll stick to Vox Popoli. That is kind of ironic if you think about it. There's a whole different kind of drama at VP.
That is completely false. Wikipedia:
"A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society."
The word means "action backwards" and it is the third alternative among conservative and progressive.
As for your comments, you have probably somehow run afoul of Blogger's spamtrap. If you have been leaving comments on leftist sites that make it obvious you aren't one of them, they may have marked your messages as spam, making it more likely that you'll be spamtrapped by all sites in Blogspot.
I have to take Jill's side here. Her first comment wasn't anything horrible deserving of this kind of reception. (Though the counterphobic/reactionary confuses...)
I'm all for ripping apart bitchiness but I think it was not evident here.
Jill said hi by calling men narcissists, then she snowflaked / nawalted, then (mis)called guys here whatever. The reception she's getting is actually moderate.
I think she's cool though. For a freak.
Markku, I was using it in a less specific sense (as in, noun: A reactionary person [or, as my old 1945 tabletop Webster's says: One who favors reaction]). But I concede that yours is the more modern and usual definition and, by that definition, I'm also a reactionary. Likewise, I concede that I should use more precise language in order to avoid what just occurred in this thread.
Yohami, I don't think men are narcissists. I was only responding to the sentiment expressed in the top comment in the thread. Again with the weird terms! Snowflaked? NAWALTED? I only responded with personal information because somebody decided to psychoanalyze my blog post, which hinged on my, supposedly, pining for a narcissistic male. Ugh. But thanks for calling me a freak. That I agree with. Over and out. I'm obviously suffering from cognitive dissonance because I don't want to respond to this thread any longer and find myself doing so anyway. I have to go make dinner.
One who favors reaction
Have you checked your dictionary for the word "reaction"? Because in all likelihood the only definition that makes sense with the word "favor" is going to be exactly what I said.
The Inner War that women have, and why they want us to quell it: http://redpillpushers.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/quell-her-inner-war/
"Jill said hi by calling men narcissists"
No, not quite.
I read her first post as questioning whether particular men preferring virtual and/or rubber "women" would be narcissists. Not "men" in general.
We could do better in welcoming newcomers. She doesn't seem hell-bent on being a bitch to me, but opinions vary, apparently.
Markku, are we really arguing over dictionary definitions? Reactionary (going off the definition of reaction): "One who favors reciprocal or return action or influence." That is the generic kind of definition I originally meant. But seeing as I already conceded your definition as being the modern and usual one, then I wonder what we are arguing over exactly. My original language was not precise, which made it both appropriate and inappropriate. The people here are, indeed, reactionaries. As you said, this is a political stance rather than a mode of debate. But thinking patterns are shaped by political ideologies (and, possibly, vice versa). This should be rather obvious to those who have bothered to engage in political debates with people on the left. And, yet, it isn't simply a matter of conservative vs liberal. The manner of debate here is quite a bit different from other conservative or libertarian blogs I visit.
"The people here are, indeed, reactionaries.... " Is Jill going to complain about men mocking the NAWALT term? (not all women are like that - for those who cannot use google to look up terms they don't understand). Then it was we were psychoanalyzing her and using generalizations such as... everyone here being reactionaries?
I suppose if you mean answering your narcissistic comments then yes - we are 'reacting' to them as any response could be considered a reaction. But if you can't stomach that why post?
Jill:
Markku, are we really arguing over dictionary definitions? Reactionary (going off the definition of reaction): "One who favors reciprocal or return action or influence."
I merely observed that "One who favors reaction])." doesn't take the argument anywhere, as this is merely what the suffix -ary means in general. The only important thing is the meaning of the base word "reaction".
Remo:
"The people here are, indeed, reactionaries.... " Is Jill going to complain about men mocking the NAWALT term?
No, since we have now established the meaning of the word; "A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society."
In its correct meaning, it is merely a statement of fact without any value judgement, that we are reactionaries. That is just to say that we are more radical than conservatives are. The only problem with the word, which was my original complaint, is that most people seem to think it means "people who respond to ideas with a knee-jerk reaction."
Actually Markku, that definition is my understanding of the term as well but I am certainly not above correction. After following your sources I admit to needing an education on the exact meaning. Well played sir.
Remo, I said that I was a reactionary by the standard definition (which Markku gave), thereby including myself in those who are, indeed, reactionaries. And I'm not sure why I would complain of something I know nothing of, nor care to Google, really. I don't need to know your Shibboleths. I do find it funny that somebody made this thread personal to me, and then when I defended myself, I became the narcissist. So this was a classic bait-and-switch based off Shibboleths--that is, accepted terminology to the insiders here. That's fine. I would have preferred to have a conversation more on the lines of how you're defining other, non-shibboleth words, such as narcissism, since you (or somebody) claimed most women are attracted to narcissists. But here we go again, wrangling over definitions. I had thought that most women were attracted to arrogance and confidence, which are traits of alpha males, but are not at all equal to narcissism. When I think of narcissism in its pure form, I think of people who are self-absorbed to the point of delusions--a personality disorder that is only attractive to a certain type of woman. I'm only bringing this up because this is the point at which I was accused of snowflaking and NAWALT. Perhaps if people spent more time being logical as well as specific in their communication, rather than jumping to conclusions, than these types of misunderstandings wouldn't occur. I appreciate Markku's ability to be that way.
Jill,
Way up thread Vox said this to you:
He's just trying to get your goat. Ignore it.
Considering he is the author of this blog, it seems he knows men and their motivations well. I'm sure he is not confused in the least why you've been called a narcissist considering the 14 comments of yours that followed his advice to you.
This is not to chastise you, in the least, only to point out to you what is obvious and predictable to men about our female nature. They actually want you to get it but will continue to play with you as long as you'll let them.
@Jill and SarahsDaughter
I think that there actually is some animosity here, it's not just that certain people are trying to get Jill's goat. The problem is the different underlying assumptions that the manosphere, particularly MGTOW, have when it comes to dating and relationships. The issue is that they see most women as going into relationships and treating men as though second class citizens existing only to fulfill their needs and desires. Because of this many see women as not worth the effort of a relationship, and will only engage with them to the extent of using them as a means for getting sex, and only do that because when it comes to that women are the only game in town. And the idea of sex bots then is attractive because it eliminates the power that women have over men.
So in essence, Jill's comment was read as men who are not willing to submit to divorce rape, alimony, and child support payments for a kid that is not theirs, are narcissists. Which is a fairly offensive statement, but I'm sure is not what was meant.
I get what you're saying, Booch. I think it's pretty obvious Jill did not mean to offend. It's likely she is unaware of what MGTOW is or has concerned herself much with the plight of men who either have suffered those things or are convinced they're inevitable.
It is important that an intelligent and talented woman such as Jill does get it. It's good to see her here. My advice to her is when a commenter like tilikum tries to rattle her cage she heed what Vox had to say.
Slightly OT, but not completely, the second episode of Almost Human dealt with sexbots. Some good stuff in it. Several women being upset about the whole concept and the actual sci/fi level of thinking about attraction triggers.
I had meant to completely disengage with this thread, but the hits are still coming through from this blog to mine (a lot of them for me). For that reason, I wanted to come back and apologize for starting this mess. I never meant to imply that men were narcissists--I was being sarcastic, and I apologize for that. And I apologize for thread-hijacking. I didn't mean to do that, either. But now that I'm back here, and have seen Sarah's Daughter's and Booch's comments, I would like to address them. Booch said, "So in essence, Jill's comment was read as men who are not willing to submit to divorce rape, alimony, and child support payments for a kid that is not theirs, are narcissists. Which is a fairly offensive statement, but I'm sure is not what was meant." This is not only NOT what I meant, but the original comment I was responding to was not couched in those terms, either. I'm very much aware of the way men lose in the legal system. I don't need to understand in-language to observe that.
You can chastise me if you like; I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. However, seeing the continued hits on my blog, I've realized my error was not in ignoring Vox's advice (he was specifically addressing the comments about my pics), but in writing about people publicly and believing it was all right if I masked their identities. What does it matter, really, if I write 14 comments in a blog thread, in which people call each other names? It's pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and it doesn't really bother or offend me. It's certainly not unusual for people to have extended arguments on blogs. The other part--of misleading people in my "true" stories--does bother me. And I was frankly not aware of how I was misleading people until the person above linked to my blog post. In the future, I will be more careful and precise in my language.
There is no big narrative crime here, only that from your description the guy comes across as an extremely A-type personality; an alpha male who isn't used to ever hearing 'no' from a woman.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.