GENIUS FORUMS

David Quinn and others have suggested (repeatedly) that the human race would be better off without women, and the only reason for keeping them around is the current necessity of wombs for procreation of men. Long have Quinn and company lamented, and longed for the day that artificial wombs could be created to remove us as obstacles to the greatness of men.

Whatever.

What would be far more quickly achievable is to replace men with androids to allow for living men to go off into the forests or wherever they want to run away from woman's society. The living men who want to stay would be welcome, of course - but to do labor, provide a father-role, and provide emotional support for the women, a number of programmable androids could be made. We have durable but soft and flexible plastic/rubber compounds that could easily fit over the machinery of a robot, and machines tend to give off heat anyway so they would be warm to the touch. Women could design them to look however they want, and those who prefer the clean-shaven look would not have to get scraped up by facial stubble. Women like to change men anyway, so these androids with the ability to be easily reprogrammed by verbal commands would be greatly appealing to women. There could even be two levels of programming so that a woman could yell things at the android that she doesn't really mean without actually changing his programming. Maybe even 3 levels of programming as a safety feature so that a woman could not accidentally program an android to cause damage.

These androids would be far more reliable than men because they would not have personal needs, wants or desires that a woman would have to take time, energy, and other of her resources away to help fulfill. Furthermore, when we were done with the androids for the meanwhile, we could just put them away and turn them off. We would not have to send them of to a hobby or whatever and worry about them philandering or getting into trouble while they were away. Women then could be far less distracted and achieve our own levels of greatness.

As for procreation, it would be simple enough to make more wide-spread use of artificial insemination for pregnancy - and with the androids programmed to meet a woman's sexual desires, this would greatly reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and STDs. Children could be bred for the criteria selected for by the parents, without having to worry about if the father would be a good provider. A woman would only need program her android to be a good provider. She may even choose to have 2 or 3 androids - one as a provider, one to do household chores, and one to meet her personal desires. She would even be able to rotate out the 3 androids - each presumably looking different, according to the taste of her mood - and have an android to match the occasion. Since these are androids, she could do this without any of them becoming jealous - unless she wanted them to. Even then, the amount of jealousy displayed would only go as far as to please her, and no real harm come of it.

The women, the androids, and whatever men who wanted to stay could build a society that truly met women's desires - and men could go do whatever it is that men like David Quinn want to do without the interference of women. Since women would then leave these men alone since we would already be otherwise occupied, perhaps these men would no longer feel the desire to eliminate us.

I assume all men will get a standard issue pocket pussy. :P

Madness! A completely uncreative use of technology. I sincerely hope this post is in jest because for you to suggest that you as a female could be satisfied with uninspired robotic copies of males while merrily sending off spirited males to the forest is to admit exactly to the female insanity individuals like David Quinn have expounded upon.

If advanced technology were available the first thing I'd do would be to upload 'myself' to an attractive female body. I'd then proceed to perform a wide variety of sexual acts and other behavior that flies in the face of conventional 'feminine wisdom.' -- just because. Most certainly after that I'd upload 'myself' simultaneously to multiple male/female bodies and have one huge orgy of myself. It would all but destroy any remaining remnants of the illusory self which gives rise to the 'mystery' of the sex act. Think of it as the modern technological version of Krishna taking a female form so he can dance with the other females in the field.

With the male/female form tapped out, I'd then proceed to experience any number of bodies outside of the conventional human form, probably something with lots of swords. I'd then challenge other similar spirited 'beings' to epic space battles in the hopes that they might propel us into higher more universal philosophies that Earthlings simply cannot fathom. We'll consume entire stars and star systems just to fuel our machine-body-thoughts. Chaos is our family.

Once humans achieve the power to leave behind these rotting obsolete meat vehicles, I shall go and never look back! The feminine minded can stay home and bitch to their hearts content.

I think that, with 15 or 20 years, the technology will be there for humanoid androids as you describe, male or female (or neutral or changeable) as you desire, with a variety of personalities available. As with any new technology, the cost will be very high at first and gradually come down (so kissaki may have to wait a while to have his robot orgy).

Parts of the technology already exist, and a lot of what is left is just putting the parts together.

On the software side, try typing "virtual girlfriend" or "virtual boyfriend" into Google. I think it's pretty clear that people will make this happen eventually.

Most women won’t be able to accept androids, as they won’t be all that satisfied by robots programmed to satisfy them emotionally. Women are very selective as to what “ideal” man they choose. Moreover, a woman’s attraction is very dependent on the extent to which a man worships her character, so she wants a “real’ man. Moreover, an android is probably worse than an undesirable man for most women.

A woman’s pleasure is that a real man is not a devoted husband from the outset, but she can try mold him into one with enough kisses and hugs. An android on the other hand is no challenge at all. You’re not going to have the same sense of suspense, drama and unpredictability with an android. And that is what women live for - the ups and downs of emotions. So what will she do when she knows exactly what her andriod man will do? Leave it for another andriod...? ha!

Realistically, you'll probably see more women become bisexual than choose androids. Another woman is probably more adequate emotionally for her than a robot.

Elizabeth,

What a great idea!




kissaki,

kissaki wrote:Madness! A completely uncreative use of technology. I sincerely hope this post is in jest because for you to suggest that you as a female could be satisfied with uninspired robotic copies of males while merrily sending off spirited males to the forest is to admit exactly to the female insanity individuals like David Quinn have expounded upon.

Most women do not want the sort of "spirited males" represented by the philosopher David Quinn. Quite the opposite, they want the sort of spirited that serves the woman, abuses the woman, can't live without the woman, i.e. another woman in man's clothing -- voila, yes, the modern man.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Most women won’t be able to accept androids, as they won’t be all that satisfied by robots programmed to satisfy them emotionally.

If she is not satisfied, then either that is bad programming, or she actually desires to be unsatisfied in order to have a continual challenge for the perfection of satisfaction.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Women are very selective as to what “ideal” man they choose.

Exactly. That might make it much more difficult on the men who choose to stay. How could they live up to the design and program of her choice? Many men can be quite difficult to train properly, and even more resent the thought of being trained.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Moreover, a woman’s attraction is very dependent on the extent to which a man worships her character, so she wants a “real’ man.

Worshiping her character would be one of the easier programs to install.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Moreover, an android is probably worse than an undesirable man for most women.

For some women this would be true - and some men would want to stay with the women because for them, only a "real" woman would do. It's likely that the numbers would work out fairly evenly in that a similar number of women would prefer live men as the number of men who would prefer live women.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:A woman’s pleasure is that a real man is not a devoted husband from the outset, but she can try mold him into one with enough kisses and hugs.

That's where the multi-layer programming comes in. An android can be programmed to respond to behavioral cues.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:An android on the other hand is no challenge at all. You’re not going to have the same sense of suspense, drama and unpredictability with an android.

Women tend to only actually want partial randomness. For example, although she may want to be taken out on a romantic getaway at random intervals, she would not want to even be offered a romantic getaway right after being informed of her mother's heart attack. Combining a random generator with appropriate parameters would satisfy the unpredictability factor, and it would be much easier for an android to remember what all the parameters are than most males could possibly remember.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:And that is what women live for - the ups and downs of emotions.

Raising children will still provide plenty of that.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:So what will she do when she knows exactly what her andriod man will do? Leave it for another andriod...? ha!

If she becomes bored, she can always reprogram him.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Realistically, you'll probably see more women become bisexual than choose androids. Another woman is probably more adequate emotionally for her than a robot.

As long as they have options other than the men who want to run away, that should be fine with everyone.

The men who run away may also want some of those labor androids, or just more robots, unless that's also too feminine for them.

.



-Elizabeth-
Since women would then leave these men alone since we would already be otherwise occupied, perhaps these men would no longer feel the desire to eliminate us.

-tomas-
Better than Australia, perhaps they need be "sent to the moon" (Jackie Gleason parlance) from The Honeymooners.


.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: If she becomes bored, she can always reprogram him.

More likely she would end up calling the android-reprogram-android to come over and fix him.

The funny thing about Elizabeth's proposition is that, in some ways at least, it seems sometimes that women try to engineer their men to become like 'androids'. You do get the impression sometimes that they wish to reengineer a defective model, get it to 'behave nicely', to serve its mistress and give no problems, and if one model is troublesome, to send it in for 'reprogramming' (therapy) or to junk it and get a better one. If you look at the various titles in women's studies sections, which include with them books of general concern to women, such as finding the right man, avoiding relationship traps, developing successful attitudes, etc., it all has a bit of that flavor.

Elizabeth strikes me as being miffed at women not being wanted or needed by men. So she is practicing as a woman not wanting or needing men in return.

That would be a good thing, transcendently speaking.

Only then will the whole world come flooding back to us in all its richest immanence :)

Wow -- part of me is unabashedly amused, part of me thoroughly appalled at this thread! Not, of course, at the initial post (which I assume to be jest; it's just too, too silly), but that it could derive other than further jest from a so-titled "genius forum".

In sooth, I may only speak for myself when I say:

I cannot imagine a world without women. Actually I can, but it's boring and lacks certain qualities which I enjoy.

I enjoy conversation with women whom I find both educated and reasonable. There aren't a lot of them but before anyone takes offense to that, please allow me to say that there aren't many MEN I believe to hold those qualities either.

I enjoy people with different perspectives -- and coincidentally, many of them are women.

I enjoy a lovely set of boobs and a fine derriere; I've yet to find those on a man or a mannequin, and as many men as I may have found "handsome" in my life, there's yet to be one who makes me wish to kiss him simply by looking tasty enough.

I enjoy the variety women bring into my life.

Most importantly, I've enjoyed the few fine women I've known in my life because they bring a completeness to me, one which may not be found in books, literature, learning, wandering or general experience. Those women have adorned my life with both Eros and Agape on more than one occasion.

Any man who truly believes the world would be better without women is short-sighted indeed, just as any woman who honestly believes (not that I think the original poster does so) that an android might replace a man in her life has not thought the matter through. Further, I would suggest that aforementioned short-sighted man and ill-considered woman would prove incapable of honestly thinking the matter through -- otherwise the foolish "Battle of the Sexes" would never have escalated into "The Gender Wars".

(Don't get me wrong; I'm a die-hard Women's Libber, but an adamant anti-Feminist.)

Then again, all things considered, Wisdom has never really been a major player in this Human Race in which we are all participants. Quite frankly I've never been a fan of human racing; the engine tends to break down after approximately 26.2 miles.

In my estimate there's no such thing as "good men" or "good women"; there's only "good people". Maybe I'm an idealist, eh?

(I'd say "Color me a foolish dreamer," but someone would counter with "I can't; there's no room left.")

Urban Sasquatch wrote:
I cannot imagine a world without women. Actually I can, but it's boring and lacks certain qualities which I enjoy.

I enjoy conversation with women whom I find both educated and reasonable.

For you is educated the same as aware? Is reasonable the same as able to reason?

There aren't a lot of them but before anyone takes offense to that, please allow me to say that there aren't many MEN I believe to hold those qualities either.

True, most men are women, as woman is defined at Genius Forum.

I enjoy people with different perspectives -- and coincidentally, many of them are women.

By perspectives do you mean beliefs and opinions? If so, what do you mean by enjoy? Different perspectives stimulate you, amuse you? Of what value are they?

I enjoy a lovely set of boobs and a fine derriere;

You admire physical beauty and are drawn by your hormones. In other words you are sort of a regular guy? Is this something to tout? Do you recommend this? Do you see it, as I do in myself, as a sort of addiction? What are the benefits?

I've yet to find those on a man or a mannequin, and as many men as I may have found "handsome" in my life, there's yet to be one who makes me wish to kiss him simply by looking tasty enough.

All you are saying is that sexually you are not gay. It's not a big point and doesn't apply to the philosophical questions underlying the topic.

Most importantly, I've enjoyed the few fine women I've known in my life because they bring a completeness to me, one which may not be found in books, literature, learning, wandering or general experience. Those women have adorned my life with both Eros and Agape on more than one occasion.

Completion is your own work to do. Another person cannot give you this in any real sense. It is not a good reason to be with someone. Self-completion is ultimately the only way.

Btw, welcome to the forum.

The desired android is probably already here. I have no doubt the Japanese have designed a pocket-rocket that will ask its owner how her day went. In this sense, and in others as well I'm sure, the vibrator has men beat in that it is smart enough not to listen to the answer.

Likewise, it will tell her that no jeans make her ass look fat, that it’s fine if her mother comes for a lengthy visit, and it will not ask her why dinner isn’t ready yet.

Given time, the Japanese will figure out how to design a dildo that can mow the lawn.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Many men can be quite difficult to train properly, and even more resent the thought of being trained.

The tongue-in-cheek nature of this thread notwithstanding, you do know the simple truth about this, don't you? Most men are not averse to the "training" as such. But what happens is, when some piece of training is successful, the trainer assumes it is okay to go on to another, then another, each successful result then becoming status-quo. And always, if all the trainning is successful, the trainer has nothing but contempt for the person she has trained, and proceeds to be dissatisfied and looks for someone else to train who will be more of a challenge.

So if men resent the thought of being trained, it's because it's a no-win-ever situation for them. If they resist, they are uncooperative, if they don't, they are weaklings. The very thought that a woman is in effect saying to him "I love you, let me change you" is so highly illogical and irritating that it probably accounts for 95% of all the misery that men experience with women.

Carl,

You have points, I'll concede that -- but there is constructive argument and/or criticism, which is to stimulate further thought or consideration, and there is destructive argument, nit-pickiness over details which are less diminutive than they are merely trite.

Without venturing into a debate over the real or unreal nature of religion (which is certainly not a point here) allow me to say that there is a reason for the title Devil's Advocate.

While the original term came from the Roman Catholic church and was used to indicate an individual given the responsibility for critical examination of evidence in matters of canonization or beatification, the more popular meaning is (as I'm certain you know full well) one who argues a less popular view solely for the sake of argument.

Debate can be a beautiful thing indeed; debate, as far as I am concerned, brings knowledge to those who dare consider, who dare, if I may be so droll, to think outside whatever box pertains to any given matter at hand.

Attempting to illustrate a difference between argument and debate might be, as the song says, like trying to divide ice from snow; still, there's more to it than mere semantics.

If one is arguing for the sake of dissection and critical examination, then argument is good.

If one isn't even listening because one is too busy thinking of what one wants to say in retort with the sole purpose of deconstructing my views and, worse yet, if one has nothing constructive to offer in place of my now-disassembled-and-done-away-with stance, then one is, indeed, playing the Devil's Advocate. After all, if such a being DID exist, a Satan, a Shaitan, a Great Adversary, would not such a being rejoice in confusion and feigned wisdom, a pretense of knowledge in the guise of obfuscation? Methinks yes.

To return to the original point (or perhaps merely to boil my own point down for your sake), a world given the perspective of either a man or a woman, but without the opposite sex of whichever might remain, would prove to be a bleak world indeed -- in what is nothing more than my own opinion.

There is philosophy and debate and conjecture in this life; there is also a great deal of what amounts to nothing more than "semantic noise".

Being misogynistic, misanthropic or an androphobe and being surly about it may make you happy, but it widens the gap between you and the rest of humanity; and if you're merely going to hoard your treasures (read "gained knowledge and perspective") without giving back to the Human race at large, then quite frankly...

... well, what are you for?!?

To address your points more directly:

- For me, Education comes in all forms but yes, I tend to base my estimation of it on a sense of awareness, being able to interact with the surrounding world sans the separation that comes with academia-without-experience. All the knowledge in the world is useless trivia without application, even a stumbling beginner's application. Before you go down that line and waste time on it, I'll say that I differentiate between ignorance and stupidity.

- Reasonable, yes, means the same as being able to reason. My own capacity for reason (combined with my apparently rare ability to say "I don't know") means that I'm able to at least consider alternate views, views which conflict with my own, without necessarily having to accept them.

- If most men (as you put it) are women as "women" are defined at Genius Forum (which you say based on my assertion that few people at large hold the capacity for reason), that speaks quite poorly of said Genius Forum. If capacity for reasonable thought is limited by gender in a standard view I would venture to say that my quest for knowledge may have brought me to the wrong place. Then again, maybe the misogyny is yours alone and not the general view; time will tell.

- By "perspective" I do, indeed, mean thoughts and opinions.

- What exactly do I mean by "enjoy"? Are you kidding me? How damnably thick ARE you? This sounds less like a person seeking knowledge or thought-provocation and more like a troll.

Different perspectives do all the things you listed: Amuse me sometimes, stimulate me sometimes, even (Heaven forbid, there's more!) anger me on occasion, make me pee, make me feel the need for a stiff drink, make me wonder if anything good is on television.

- Of what value are they? Hell, man -- what constitutes "great literature"? Is it limited to the writing style as appraised by the literary powers of the time, or is it any message or change one carries away after reading it? Don't just bark at me, THINK about it!

- Yes, I am a regular guy -- or I would be were I running for public office. Instead I'm just a man; I'd dare say that despite the popular opinion in here I've yet to encounter any gods. I am, quite often, drawn by my hormones. A good lay is not a thing to be disdained. An older man has usually realized this; a younger man pretends to be above it, instead channeling his lack of physical prowess into either hobbies or hatred. Disinterest is one thing, disdain quite another. It doesn't honestly merit discussion, now does it? Shall we move on?

Pertaining to my status as a "regular guy", is it, indeed, something to tout? Eh... not so much. More a matter of recognition. Is it good to pretend to be something more than what one actually is? Not aspire -- pretend!

If you see the physical side of yourself, or at least any sexual needs, as mere addiction I'd suggest a beer, a movie, a walk in the rain and dinner with a young lady. Relax -- there's aspiration and then there's taking oneself way too seriously.

- My lack of being gay -- it IS pertinent to the philosophical point at hand.

The world IS as it IS; we aspire to better it in some small way before we die, to leave a legacy for our offspring (if we're so lucky), a legacy both physical and academic, so that they're better than we. Such being the case, who in their right mind would even consider ridding this world of either men or women? Getting both under a bit of controlled restraint might not be such a bad idea, but that option didn't come with the directions, now did it?!?

Asking whether the world would be better if we got rid of one sex entirely (or most of it, making sex-slaves or pets of the remainder) is like jauntily asking about ridding the world of the male or female of all species -- egotistic nihilism, pure and simple. It's like those dolts who can't simply commit suicide, they have to take twenty people with them just to prove they were pissed off at the world. Seriously, what good is that?

Completion is your own work to do. Another person cannot give you this in any real sense. It is not a good reason to be with someone. Self-completion is ultimately the only way.

Well now... THAT smacks of infallibility, doesn't it?

By the way, thanks for welcoming me to the forum; I mean that. Good to be here.

Elizabeth,

Women tend to only actually want partial randomness. For example, although she may want to be taken out on a romantic getaway at random intervals, she would not want to even be offered a romantic getaway right after being informed of her mother's heart attack. Combining a random generator with appropriate parameters would satisfy the unpredictability factor, and it would be much easier for an android to remember what all the parameters are than most males could possibly remember.

It seems like a waste of energy to me, to put all this energy into satisfying the selfish excessive desires of women, or even men for that matter. Robots should be used to help humanity go beyond many of these primitive emotional needs to begin with, not to help them satisfy their weakest longings easier. You are too content with the present inferiority of humans.

Why not create "sage" robots programmed to teach children how to reason, go beyond the ego, and negate the evil of sentimentalism? Isn't that much more intelligent than creating robots to help women to be happier in their romantic lives? how cheesy is that!

While were at it, why don't we also create robots to help alpha male baboons fight off the competition in the clan? What a waste of possible intelligent resources!

brokenhead: you do know the simple truth about this, don't you? Most men are not averse to the "training" as such.

You know, I've thought about this before - grown-up men kind of wanting to be taken-in-hand by a woman, inspected, even corrected and praised, or blamed and psychically spanked.

Now what little bit from the history of his familiar conditioning does this sound like? You don't need Freud to answer this one. We are always replaying our conditioning. Same with women who want men as protectors and saviors. Comes from the patrichian position assumed of their almighty fathers.

We need new mothering. Which means, the raising of children not in mother's exclusive care. I am of the belief that this immanence-duty thrust upon her alone is part of what makes her insane. Dad has to come down from his flaccid pedestal and make his best impress, too.

In fact, perhaps we don't need as much parenting as we think we do.

Ever read Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa"? It's a real eye-opener, regarding the non-fragility of children. Here in the West, we hold them in protective custody far too long.

Urban Sasquatch wrote: I cannot imagine a world without women. Actually I can, but it's boring and lacks certain qualities which I enjoy.

I dare say it wouldn't be long before they are forgotten and no longer missed. The mind will turn to others things for stimulation and enjoyment.

Shake a rattle before a baby and it will be transfixed. It will be completely mesmerized at the sight of it, such that if you were to suddenly take the rattle away it will wail in complaint. Yet before long it will be impatiently pushing the rattle away as though it were a hindrance.

Spiritually speaking, the human race is still at the baby stage.

Most importantly, I've enjoyed the few fine women I've known in my life because they bring a completeness to me, one which may not be found in books, literature, learning, wandering or general experience. Those women have adorned my life with both Eros and Agape on more than one occasion.

As Carl points out, if you rely on someone else to complete you, then you will remain incomplete yourself.

What is a couple? A witty alliance between two half-wits.

In my estimate there's no such thing as "good men" or "good women"; there's only "good people". Maybe I'm an idealist, eh?

There is a world of difference between a good man and a good woman. A good man is a fearless sage driving civilization forwards. A good woman is pretty much how you described her - a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a temporary filler of lesser men's incompletion.

-

Pye wrote:In fact, perhaps we don't need as much parenting as we think we do.

Ever read Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa"? It's a real eye-opener, regarding the non-fragility of children. Here in the West, we hold them in protective custody far too long.

Well, I just have to agree with this.

Elsewhere in these threads I think I mentioned that I once took custody of a homeless teenage girl who had never had a father and whose only relative she knew of was her mother. The mother was also homeless, she was a New York City bag lady, there are hundreds of them. My live-in girlfriend at the time and I met this girl while she was selling flowers on 32nd St. We were in our mid-twenties. The girl's history was almost unthinkable - she lived in eight places that I knew about before we took custody of her. I don't mean eight places in her life, I mean eight places just since we met her.

My point is that this child was astonishingly normal. She was a girl you would want. She was sharp as a tack, mature beyond her years, and was one of the bravest people I have known simply by how she had been forced to live.

You are so right about the "non-fragility of childern."

Urban Sasquatch,

Being misogynistic, misanthropic or an androphobe and being surly about it may make you happy, but it widens the gap between you and the rest of humanity; and if you're merely going to hoard your treasures (read "gained knowledge and perspective") without giving back to the Human race at large, then quite frankly...

... well, what are you for?!?

Why must someone else be useful for you? That sounds a lot more misanthropic than anything offered here.

It's both conceivable and sane to have values besides other people, and it is foolish to take that as a sign of covert misanthropy. Look at the seven values listed at the top of every page: a man could value these seven things above all else, and then put as his 8th value humanity. How often would he do things for others? Does that imply hatred?

David Quinn wrote:There is a world of difference between a good man and a good woman. A good man is a fearless sage driving civilization forwards. A good woman is pretty much how you described her - a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a temporary filler of lesser men's incompletion.

Dan won't say it, but I'll just bet that it's misogynistic statements like this that make him bristle when a GF member says "QRS this" or "QRS that." To the extent that you are serious about this statement, David, is the extent to which you lose my understanding. A good woman is an ornament. A bit of entertainment. A temporary something-or-other.

You must live in a very small world, David.

brokenhead wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There is a world of difference between a good man and a good woman. A good man is a fearless sage driving civilization forwards. A good woman is pretty much how you described her - a pleasing ornament, a bit of entertainment, a temporary filler of lesser men's incompletion.

Dan won't say it, but I'll just bet that It's misogynistic statements like this that makes him bristle when a GF member says "QRS this" or "QRS that." To the extent that you are serious about this statement, David, is the extent to which you lose my understanding. A good woman is an ornament. A bit of entertainment. A temporary something-or-other.

You miss a lot, don't you.

I was summarizing Urban's views of women - which are fairly standard views and, of course, deeply misogynistic in nature. They are obviously not my views.

The last thing the average man wants a woman to be is a fearless sage.

-

WTF?

You just lied. Why would you do that? At least I didn't miss that.