It always sucks when an otherwise excellent show is ruined by pc feminizing and rape hysteria. The above trailer is for AMC’s show “humans” a dystopic depiction of human society in the very near future where human like robot assistants called “synths” do our bidding, freeing up time and increasing productivity for their human masters. The creator of the synths has managed to imbue just a handful of robots with true artificial intelligence, they are sentient creatures, and are on a quest to search each other out. One of these robots is working in a brothel, none of the johns who visit her know that she is sentient, she hides this fact from them fearing that if man discovers that there are sentient robots within their midst they might search them out and destroy them for fear of the potentially disastrous ramifications they represent.

Thus, here are the Johns, visiting this robo-brothel, thinking they are having sex with an inanimate, albeit sexually attractive female sex-robot. The sexbot, having enough of a working girls lifestyle decides to break out of the brothel and find her sentient robot kin, and as she does so, she confronts the madame of the robo bar, attack her and tells her (paraphrasing) “All of your men want to do to you, what they do to me” This is not the exact phrase but the implication was clear, that all men, deep down want a personal private woman to rape, and they would, if only they could get away with it.

The series while at times shining through with excellent portrayals of how humans can be tricked into bonding or even falling in love with these synth robots, is peppered with more than one attempt to depict these inanimate robots as being saved by other humans from the crime of rape….

It’s almost as if the writers are all working hard on this gem of a show, but are too afraid to reject the silly ideas of the one female feminist who managed to find her way onto the writing staff, either that or the editor in chief is banging said feminist and is doing all of this to appease her.

Whatever the case may be this ridiculous notion of female sex robots being capable of being raped has been floating around feminist circles for quite some time now, most recently with a ted talk where a feminist by the name of Jincey Lumpkin actually posed the question “Can robots be raped?”

Ted talk lost all of its credibility with me when they let this dunce on, but I link this video simply to show you the extent to which women want to criminalize male sexuality, they understand the ramifications of men having an aesthetically pleasing dirty talking sexbot to bang in comparison to them and they do not like it one bit, I’ve detailed this here as well, the release of the film ex machina really got this whole drive to protect the sexbots from the evil male sex drive rolling.

But as with all attempts to demonize the sexuality of men, the same does not apply to female kind. Case in point this article titled What Would Sex Robots for Women Look Like? . Some choice bits:

“Once you’ve had a lover robot, you’ll never want a real man again.” That’s a line from Gigolo Joe, the sexbot played by Jude Law in A.I. Artificial Intelligence, the 2001 Steven Spielberg film. What makes Gigolo Joe special—aside from his dewy skin, gnocchi-plump lips, and shiny-suit razzmatazz—is that he represents a very rare filmic depiction of a male sexbot . Think about it. The sexbots you know and love are almost exclusively female bots servicing human men. They’re the Stepford Wives’ gynoids and Austin Powers’ s fembots; they’re Ava and Kyoko of Ex Machina and Pris of Blade Runner. Chick sexbots populate television, too. Buffy the Vampire Slayer‘s April and the Buffybot were lovingly crafted with the express purpose of fucking. Humans’ bellicose Niska is a sexbot, as, arguably, is Battlestar Gallactica’s Six. Dark Matter’s Wendy is an “entertainment android,” whose abilities include sex. While Star Trek: The Next Generation’s Data is “fully functional,” his functionality is more a feature than his purpose—being able to have sex does not a sexbot make. Intentionality is key.

Notice how there is no talk of artificially intelligent male robots that are subject to extreme violence, (David from Prometheus is an example who was decapitated) they are conveniently never mentioned, and notice the hypocritical way the author gushes over a male robot bearing the likeness of jude law. I guess when a woman shows sexual attraction to a male robot it’s cute, and when a man does it for a female robot it’s at best creepy and borderline rape at worst, or at least a manifestation of the deep urge to rape that all men are apparently suppressing that could bubble up to the surface at any minute or some shit…

These media representations have set up both our expectations of what sexbots should look like (undeniably hot, recognizably human, and typically female) as well as what our reactions should be (an erotic frisson of fear and curiosity). Think of Pris’s manipulative shy-girl act in Blade Runner, Kyoko’s placid, mute unbuttoning of her blouse in Ex Machina, or the bright red dress of Six and her wet, hot, world-destroying kiss. Movies and television depict sexbots as women who are simultaneously objectified and untrustworthy; sexbots personify a metaphor for a walking, talking, seducing monster. Given this model, it’s especially important that the sexbots you see are female and their consumers are male.

Aaand it begins, women are objectified blah blah blah female robots are always portrayed as hypersexual blah blah bah… Doesn’t matter to these people that (spoiler) the female artificially intelligent robot uses her sexuality to manipulate a man into freeing her after she killed her creator, thats, like, empowering and stuff. Somehow it all must come back to the patriarchy and somehow it is still mens fault. It’s a powerful metaphor isn’t it? the fact that men are the only creatures in this planet with the capability and intelligence to create artificial intelligence and women are the only creatures capable of somehow turning that unprecedented accomplishment (when it happens, and it will) into a blame the menz rape narrative.

Fictional sexbots matter because every month drags sexbots closer to becoming a reality. Last September , Kathleen Richardson, a robot ethicist at England’s Montfort University, launched her Campaign Against Sex Robots with Erik Billing of Sweden’s University of Skövde. Steeped in anti–sex worker rhetoric, the campaign’s manifestostates, “We take issue with those arguments that propose that sex robots could help reduce sexual exploitation and violence towards prostituted persons, pointing to all the evidence that shows how technology and the sex trade coexist and reinforce each other creating more demand for human bodies.” It’s a dystopian vision. The Campaign Against Sex Robots is a prophylactic organization, since no sexbots really exist. A company called TrueCompanion claims to make “the world’s first and highest quality sex robot doll,” but their female model, a $7,000 machine dubbed Roxxxy, is essentially a stationary rubber-clad computer equipped with touch sensors and a vibrating vagina. But Richardson is right that there are a lot of would-be sexbot creators who see her sci-fi nightmare as a shiny future full of possibilities. One of these people is Matt McMullen, creator of the RealDoll, who is currently developing an animatronic sex doll with artificial intelligence. “The hope is to create something that will actually arouse someone on an emotional and intellectual level,” McMullen avers in a slickNew York Times video segment that’s lit with an Instagram-like romantic haze. The video profiles McMullen’s quest to make “the world’s first sex ro-obot,” as Denise, the computer animation, says with a telling diphthong. His company’s RealDolls are touted as the Rolls Royce of sex dolls, but even a Rolls Royce Wraith looks pretty antiquated to people who lust after a MacLaren P1. Hence the need to create something that walks and talks—or at least writhes and whispers—like a living human woman. Though McMullen and Richardson are diametrically opposed, they assume three very crucial points about sexbots, and none of them are necessarily true. First, that the primary consumers of sexbots will be heterosexual men. Second, that these consumers need their sexbots to look recognizably human. And third, that consumers require an emotional attachment to their bot. So here’s my radical thought: What if we throw those assumptions aside? Fuck men and their need for bots that fall into the uncanny valley. What if we choose, instead, to market sexbots to women? How does that one simple change rewrite the entire sexbot script?

How to market sex bots to women? easy, put a feature in these male robots where they routinely disobey the womans commands, make them randomly pick a night where they disappear, get plastered on antifreeze or whatever the equivalent of robot booze would be, and come home and fuck their female master in the ass, to any entrepreneurs attempting this feat, do not under any circumstances make these robots with a “nice guy” mode or else they will end up in the trash heap and most women will not buy them in the first place…

Joking of course…

But not really.

The point here of course is that if women all of a sudden take to banging sex bots men aren’t going to start a social movement based on demonizing the female sex drive, we’d just join in the festivities by purchasing our own female sex robots for our own pleasure. There does not have to be a campaign to market sexbots to only one gender at a time, although the author would probably like that, sexbots for women only and a constitutional amendment making female sexbots illegal, wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.

It wouldn’t take tech as advanced as Gigolo Joe to pique women’s interest in sexbots. For one thing, women already use sex toys. While some, albeit limited, studies suggest sex toy purchasers are split roughly evenly between women and men, there’s no denying that the sex toys made for women are more common, better functioning, and more interesting. Moreover, women don’t really care whether the toy they’re using to orgasm even faintly resembles the anatomy of a human man. The closest cousin to a Hitachi magic wand is a handheld blender, but no one cares that this iconic vibrator looks nothing like a dick. While toys for men, whether Fleshlights or RealDolls, conjure the appearance of an actual woman, women’s toys don’t.

Fleshlights certainly do not conjure the appearance of an actual woman, they conjure, much like the millions of vibrating penises that women pleasure themselves with every day, a disembodied female sex organ, men are more than capable of selecting out the bits and pieces of the female anatomy they find pleasurable and rejecting the rest purely for their sexual satisfaction, this is not a female trait by any stretch of the imagination, and as far as real dolls are concerned, let’s not pretend that women would prefer a vibrator over a realistic looking sex bot of their ideal male specimen…and since when is human sexuality so simple that it can be reduced to men will only want chicks and women will only want dicks? there are of course gay men, and lesbians, and men that will want a “female” sexbot with a functioning penis and women that will want a male-like sexbot with a functioning vagina, the various combinations that sex robots will take are vast and will likely resemble the current state of porn, with a market for every conceivable fetish the human mind is capable of thinking up.

It continues from there folks but I cant read this nonsense any longer. Peruse at your own risk.