Thread 33865946

Long story short, I'm writing a plot device to be used for a story later. But I've got a dilemma in my story.

If a society can create perfect synthetic women, what unique value does an organic woman have outside of child birth/Ova production?

I'm trying to keep this as believable and logical as possible. In all of my explanations within the story is sensible and doesn't involve "well...just because okay!" or "space magic" as a reasoning for anything. But I keep coming back to this question. I'm really trying to prevent the women of my story from essentially becoming body farms but when faced with the consequences of such a system it always devolves into that.

A true love. An understanding of a meaning of a life and all of it sorrows - life is not just sex, perfect tits and ass. To ask "What unique value does an organic woman" is to say "There is no such thing as person, there is only meat and my animal desires.

Are they also making perfect synthetic men? That would raise the question of what unique value men have outside of making money and sperm.

>>33868108
What attracts males and females is fundamentally different. The feminine version is easily replicated, the masculine isn't. The feminine is a fuckbot that can fold laundry, do the cooking, keep the house clean and have interesting conversation.

The masculine would be much more complex. Robo men will not be more interesting to women than a dildo. Women are attracted to status, a literal possession will not do it for them beyond sexual gratification.

>>33866904
Define it.
If “true love” means permanent, loyal, exclusive, self-sacrificing, Immune to mood, trend, or better offers. Then most modern women don’t offer it.
They offer conditions, not covenant. That’s more true than the real thing.

>>33868189
I mean, what’s the point of your story?

A woman is just another person (despite what people on 4chan keep saying).
If you could have someone better — it doesn’t matter who, let’s say your best friend — you could make them more obedient, prettier, or whatever you want. Would you really unmake them just to have a perfect synthetic friend?

Are you saying, that you see nothing more in life than ugly packages and prettier ones you can fuck for your own pragmatic reasons?
Man, there’s so much more than what we can see with our bare eyes. And to name one of it it is: love.

>>33865946 (OP)
>If a society can create perfect synthetic women, what unique value does an organic woman have outside of child birth/Ova production?
None, and if they create a DNA bank with all women DNA, genetic engineering, artificial bellies, they will be obsolete.

>>33868412
>Are you saying, that you see nothing more in life than ugly packages and prettier ones you can fuck for your own pragmatic reasons?
You are the one resuming everything into sex. Waifubot can have ANY personality you desire, can be funny, loyal... It's not just about the package. But yeah, the package matters too, if you can have a wife with 0.00001% looks, and one bellow average, which one would you pick?

>>33868412

This is an emotional appeal built on false equivalence and projection.

>what’s the point of your story?
It started as just being bored asking AI quesitons. Now it is an entire techno-religious cult based off of body purity and the holy machine. Imagine a bizzaro world Mechanicus and you'd be starting to get close. It's written in a way that all you have to do to allow it to come into being is for things now to continue as they are. Technology is naturally progressing toward that.


> “A woman is just another person.”
No. A woman is a biological category with reproductive power and behavioral patterns that shape civilization. Treating her as “just a person” ignores sexual dynamics, evolutionary psychology, and social asymmetries. This is not 4chan—it’s basic anthropology.

> “Would you unmake your best friend for a synthetic one?”
False analogy. Men aren’t replacing friends--they’re replacing untrustworthy mates.
Most men don’t ask for perfection. They ask for loyalty, peace, and permanence.
Modern women fail that routinely. Synthetics solve it.

> “Is life just prettier packages to fuck?”
No.
But if the “real” ones lie, cheat, age with resentment, weaponize intimacy, and mock devotion
then yes, the prettier loyal one wins despite it's artificial nature.

> “There’s more than what we can see. Like love.”
Define it. You can't.

If “true love” means: permanent, loyal, exclusive, self-sacrificing, immune to mood, trend, or better offers Then most modern women don’t offer it. They offer conditions, not covenant.

All female love, except maybe the love from your mother, is conditional and based off of providing something to her in return for basic things like affection and give a fuck.

If a synthetic partner gives: daily presence, eternal memory, no deception, no drift. That’s more true than the real thing.

>>33868412
>Would you really unmake them just to have a perfect synthetic friend?
Am I fucking my friend? Nop, so it wouldn't matter, but their personality should matter a lot, and a bot can have any personality you want.

>>33868446
>if they create a DNA bank with all women DNA
All call these grailes within my system. They provide ova in exchange for protection and provisions.

>>33868446
>genetic engineering
This is heretical within my system. I'm trying to avoid Tzeenthian monkey's paw horrors.

>>33868446
>artificial bellies
Permitted but only under extreme situations where natural birth isn't viable because [see previous].

>>33868454
Honestly, this thread with you was my first time when I posted something here. I have nothing much to say. I wasn't prepared for this kind of dispute. I'm going head back to bed.

>>33868451
Referring to sexual intercourse is a form of communication that predates language. That's why I used it. If I had the opportunity to set a better example, I would have, but I simply didn't have the idea. Sorry.

>>33868454
>modern women
not that anon, but from what I've seen you post this seems like an incel thread disguised as a pseud literary advice thread to get anons to admit that "modern women == bad", but with plausible deniability.
In any case, good women are only as good as bad women are bad. Yin and yang and all that.
Can't have one without the other. If you take "bad" women out of the equation i.e. one's that don't lie, cheat, manipulate and all the other shit you wrote then the opposite "good" qualities will loose all value, because they can't be compared to anything. Humans are defined by their shortcomings just as much as they are by their virtues.
Unless you plan to make that gay little moral lesson the point of synthetic women existing in your """story""", then they have no real weight to your """world""" other than as a product and-or marketing campaign companies try to push on people who genuinely believe that you can replace real, authentic human connection, in it's flawed entirety, with a programmable, obedient piece of silicone.

>>33868613
False premise, circular logic, and contradiction.

“Good women are only good because bad women exist.”
Then good is just less bad. That's not virtue, it's tolerable failure.
If loyalty only matters because betrayal exists, you’ve already accepted misery as baseline. That’s cope.

“You can’t replace real, flawed connection with something synthetic.”
You absolutely can. Men aren’t replacing flaw. They’re replacing treachery.
A synthetic who never lies, cheats, or manipulates is not fake. She’s honest. Something modern women desperately struggle to do.

“Humans are defined by shortcomings.”
A system that filters for devotion and honesty isn’t erasing humanity.
It’s restoring it by freezing out those who weaponize their flaws and call it “real.”

“Sounds like an incel story in disguise.”
Wrong again.
There’s no guarantee of access in my story. The men of this world still have problems men have now, just less female related.

Only the worthy bond.
Only the loyal are kept.
Only the true are remembered.

No coomers. No shortcuts. No lies.

>>33868855
Nigga, how do you even define loyalty without the existence of betrayal? Why does loyalty even matter at that point if it's a 100% guarantee and if your sex doll doesn't even have the capacity to be disloyal. Why does her love matter if she's incapable of NOT loving you? All of these are circular by their very nature. There is no other way to define them in isolation from each other without making the respective other null and void. There is no right, if wrong doesn't exist.
You can make the same statement about any of the virtues you listed.
Not like you care about any of that, because you are mentally ill and looking for any leeway to get a gatcha out of anons here and on /pol/ to agree with you admit that modern women are le bad thus validating your abandonment-anxiety induced world view.
You don't have a """story""" to begin with, you're just an incel who thinks he's clever because he found an excuse to make an incel thread.
>b-b-but that's ad hominem
Don't care. Any attempt at reasoning will just prompt you to go back to whatever retarded "logic" you use and pretend like you made some sort of compelling argument for why human women need to be replaced.

>>33868189
>What attracts males and females is fundamentally different.
that's not true. I don't know why you think that, but its wrong.

>>33868855

> A system that filters for devotion and honesty isn’t erasing humanity.
It’s restoring it by freezing out those who weaponize their flaws and call it “real.”

It is erasing humanity. Flaws are at the very core of human nature. The same goes for advantages. You cannot talk about what is 'human' without considering both evil and good. That is how we are made. Dissolving every flaw strips the essence from our nature. Being faithful does not mean never thinking about betrayal from the day one is born. Like every virtue, it means learning and building yourself to walk the right path in life.

>>33868855
>Only the worthy bond. Only the loyal are kept. Only the true are remembered.
y'know this could apply to men as easily as it could to women right? Shit a lot of what you wrote about why sexbots are better than women could also apply as to why they are better than men.

>>33869105
Female hands typed this post.

>It is erasing humanity.
Incorrect. You’ve confused flaws with betrayal, and potential with permission.

A system that filters does not erase humanity. It defines it by what is preserved.

Flaws like doubt, fear, or failure? Endured.

Flaws like cowardice or selfishness? Overcome.

Flaws like lying, abandoning, or exploiting? Rejected. Not because they’re “inhuman,” but because they destroy trust, and trust is non-negotiable.

"Being faithful does not mean never thinking about betrayal."

Correct.
But acting on it disqualifies you. You are free to struggle. You are not free to poison the bond and call it growth.

The system doesn’t demand inhumanity. It demands earned virtue not excuses, not “everyone makes mistakes,” not “I was finding myself.”
Once bonded, you do not stray. That’s the vow. That’s the line.

You are human the moment you uphold it.
Not the moment you rationalize breaking it.
Such is my story.

>>33868189
>The masculine would be much more complex.
The number of ai boyfriends right now is ridiculous. Romance scammers go for old women.

>Robo men will not be more interesting to women than...
The most perfect liar in the world isn't interesting? Look on reddit where they're building idealistic personalities with celebrity looks

>>33869415
>The number of ai boyfriends right now is ridiculous. Romance scammers go for old women.

Stable providers are called boring. Women don't want synthetic perfection. They are attracted to status, power, and social proof -- signals of dominance earned through competition.

A "robo man" can't generate status.
He has no career, no struggle, no legacy, no scars.
He didn't fight to rise; he was selected like sliding scales on a character creator screen.

Worse, he doesn't choose her. She installs him. That kills the fantasy.
No woman wants a man she can buy.
No woman respects a man she can command.
No woman desires a man she can predict.

Men don't care about any of that. In fact, that's a selling point to them.

If perfect synthetic men existed, they'd have to:

- Hold down a job
- Earn real money
- Command respect from real men
- Be envied by other women
- Choose one woman over all others by will, not wiring

Male value is demonstrated through hardship.
Female desire depends on seeing that value conquer the world, then choose her.
No machine can fake that and you'll will inevitably end up with a "Yes, honey!"-bot. Then that gets boring and deep down, they know:

A man without struggle is just a toy.
And women don't love their toys. They use them. Then discard them when new thing is new thing because my friends like new thing and I have to also like new thing to still be relavent with friend a and d even though friend d doesn't get alone with friend e so I ......so on and so forth.

God, OP is such a faggot. This faggy novel will go nowhere, and you are mentally stunted. You just want people to engage with your semantic sophism to confirm your own ideas. Have you ever had meaningful relationships with human beings? Stop theorycrafting life itself.
>>33868613
There is nothing I hate more than a pseud

>>33868454
ngl gang this rebuttal feels AI generated.

>>33871145
Why? Because — is included? It's just alt 0151.

>>33871169
Honestly, the dash was a flag but not the main trip. I'll continue being honest by stating that I don't quite have the ability to convey why I feel it's AI generated, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

1. "It's not X, it's Y."
We see a few examples of this or its derivative, with examples I noticed below.

>This is not 4chan—it’s basic anthropology.
>Most men don’t ask for perfection. They ask for loyalty, peace, and permanence.
>Men aren’t replacing friends--they’re replacing untrustworthy mates.
> That's not virtue, it's tolerable failure.
>>33868855

2. Repetition
This is something I've noticed about AI writing that I didn't really see in human writing before, especially pre 2022.

>No coomers. No shortcuts. No lies.
>>33868855

>Flaws like doubt, fear, or failure? Endured. Flaws like cowardice or selfishness? Overcome. Flaws like lying, abandoning, or exploiting? Rejected. Not because they’re “inhuman,” but because they destroy trust, and trust is non-negotiable.
>>33869269

There's probably more but I'm not bothered digging.


3. Bog standard /pol/ mindset on women.
I'm torn between marking this flag as AI or just you being a grade A asshole. You make it seem like women are inherently evil or out to get you, and you seem pissed that love is actually conditional. Surprise, dipshit. All love is conditional. Some conditions are easier to meet than others, and what those conditions are varies from being to being.
I'm not going to provide examples for this one because it would be every fucking post you've made in this thread.

>>33871195
>You make it seem like women are inherently evil

>>33871214
Failed to address the rest of the criticism, and replied with a GIF that's open to interpretation. What childish behavior.

As people my age say, syfm bro

>>33871214
Continuation of >>33871220, because this mf is actually pissing me off the more I think about it.

All love you get is conditional, even your mothers love. As I said earlier,
>Some conditions are easier to meet than others, and what those conditions are varies from being to being.
You giving your love to someone else is also conditional, and don't try to take the high road and claim that's not the case. We all know that's not true because we also realise our love is conditional.

I'm willing to take a guess that you don't have an in depth conversation with every person you see. I'm also willing to guess that you don't go around fucking randos, indiscriminate of gender, age geographical location, disability, and any other condition under the sun because GUESS WHAT, LOVE IS CONDITIONAL AND FINITE. It really doesn't matter if the love we're talking about is romantic, sexual, or platonic. It still has conditions, it still has limits.

Let's assume you get a partner, or have one right now. Sure, you love them, but if they cheated on you, betrayed you, crimes against humanity, or anything else you have a strong bias against, chances are you're gonna love her less, or even stop loving her completely. My ex cheated on me and I stopped loving them that second. Sure, I cared about them, and wanted to make sure their critical needs were met, but any romantic or sexual spark I had with them was just gone. Say it with me now, LOVE IS CONDITIONAL. And even if you find a partner, you also have to account for the fact that their love is conditional too. Don't be a dick, don't cheat, be able to provide are common conditions for a partners love, but you can find people who don't have those conditions for their outbound love and relish in it.

>>33871262
You've insinuated asking "what is love" a few times in this thread, let me answer for you.

Love is kindness. Love is loyalty. Love is hard work. Love is sacrifice. Love is scary. Love is maddening. Love is a force we cannot fully understand or control.
Love is human.

TL;DR, you're a pretentious asshole who gets off on demonising women, while having no understanding of the underlying functions of affection. You addressed one line out of several after asking me to make an explanation, completely ignoring the rest of my criticism while attempting to be tongue-in-cheek. You have to grow up and realise that not everybody is out to get you, and hating on half the planet isn't going to get you anywhere in life.

>>33871263
There is a difference between saying “I love you as long as you do not betray me” and “I love you as long as you benefit me.” The first preserves the bond; the second exploits it. One guards the heart, the other drains it. That distinction is the line between devotion and manipulation. Real loyalty demands reciprocity, not utility. It survives through honesty, not profit. Men love idealistically, women love opportunistically.

Women are statistically more selective because biology made them the reproductive bottleneck. That selectivity often translates into waiting for the man who already has the traits that signal safety and status rather than helping him build them. In modern conditions where survival no longer depends on mutual labor, many simply opt to join the winner rather than invest in the struggle.

There are exceptions. Some women genuinely stay loyal through difficulty, but the social system no longer rewards that kind of devotion. The average woman does not need to endure hardship to secure security; she can just switch partners or rely on institutions.


>>33871263
>Love is kindness. Love is loyalty. Love is hard work. Love is sacrifice.
And when you live in the world feminism has wrought what do we get?
>I'm willing to take a guess that you don't have an in depth conversation with every person you see.
A large portion of the nation reads at a 6th grade level. Rousing philosophical debate is a rarity for me, this is true.

>I'm also willing to guess that you don't go around fucking randos
I stopped counting at 37. Once you understand how to unlock the puzzle box that is female vagina the game isn't as fun. Books, ideas and data is more interesting at that point.

>>33871220
Yes, y'all are 100% demons. There. How's that?

>>33871262
>Let's assume you get a partner
Been there done that darlin. It's all the same. Turns out no matter where you go on earth, it's all the same.

>>33865946 (OP)
Status symbol, having a bio wife spouse says at least one of these partners is literally better than a hand crafted relationship slave. Could also be the challenge of getting an bio partner instead of taking the easy route of using a fabricated one. The rich in our world use both of those metrics as status symbols, better wives or husbands and grotesquely bred dogs or pets when a normal but inexpensive one would be better in basically all metrics but status. Also if one of these characters is a nasty peice of work targeting bio women to abuse or manipulate might feel better than simply breaking his third toaster talking vagina.


Last I can think of is religious purposes or people who are hyper sensitive to uncanny valley. Like people who can sense the last 0.001% of inhumanity and it grates on them like nails on a chalkboard everytime they interact with a fabricated.

>>33871195
Heavy on the AI usage. This feels like OP was even too lazy to write his own shit and plugged it into ChatGPT.

>>33865946 (OP)
From a technical perspective, unlikely that synthetic women would ever reach that level of realism. The greatest counterargument is simply that it's physically impossible.

>>33871575

>There is a difference between saying “I love you as long as you do not betray me” and “I love you as long as you benefit me.”
Yeah no shit. However, they both fall under the same umbrella of "Love is conditional." Love (assuming a romantic relationship between two adults) is typically beneficial to both parties involved on multiple fronts, including but not limited to social, sexual, financial, mental, and legal. Every relationship I have gone into, I have come out a better man because (not in spite of) what happened to me. There have been breakups that almost caused my suicide, and there have breakups where everything was amicable, even if I was a little sad. I learned so much in every relationship, and I can safely say I would be a bitter broken man right now if I hadn't gone into them, even the one that almost killed me. There are lessons to be learned if you have eyes to see them, ears to hear them, and a mind to process them.

>The average woman does not need to endure hardship to secure security...
hahahahahahahahaha what?

> ...[S]he can just switch partners or rely on institutions.
I dunno how to explain this to you, but women can and will be as picky or as open as men are. They are human, like us. However, there are risks to switching partners frequently, such as rape, abuse, trafficking, etc. There's a reason why very few women do that, and it's the same reason that they're the loud minority. If you really were the writer you claim to be, you should be able to use your critical thinking skills to deduce why that might be the case.

(1/2)

>>33873839 (cont)

>And when you live in the world feminism has wrought what do we get?
Feminism hasn't happened yet. Feminism is the belief that men and women should be equal in all respects, including pay, rights, healthcare, work, and anything else I can't think of right now. As it stands, there has been progress but it's nowhere near complete. I don't get how you as a man can be threatened by feminism, considering the fact it's just equality. Maybe you're scared they'll have the same bargaining power as you for potential suitors, and you would not be selected.

>A large portion of the nation reads at a 6th grade level. Rousing philosophical debate is a rarity for me, this is true.
Okay? I was reading at a college level in 6th grade, you don't see me parading that fact around. You can still have conversations with people, even if they're surface level. Just because it's not to the depth you would like, it doesn't mean it's shallow. Believe it or not, small talk has a purpose. I wonder if you ever think about why humans make seemingly meaningless conversation.

>I stopped counting at 37. Once you understand how to unlock the puzzle box that is female vagina the game isn't as fun. Books, ideas and data is more interesting at that point.
Oh so it IS just a game to you? I understand why you see women as sub-human now. Despicable language.

>Yes, y'all are 100% demons. There. How's that?
Who tf are you talking to? I'm not a representative of my generation, I speak for myself and myself only. Don't put words in my mouth.

>Been there done that darlin. It's all the same. Turns out no matter where you go on earth, it's all the same.
Have you been diagnosed with ASPD yet? I genuinely recommend speaking to a doctor.

>>33872937
Me personally, I could never do that. If I have a stance of any type, I better be able to back it up myself without some glorified chatbot telling me what to say.

(2/2)

i think thats a question that generally applies to technology and science by all means. its whether you put scientific pursuit (or comfort or whatever other byproduct) above human dignity. if one line can be crossed for that matter, all the other will be crossed eventually and the human dignity is degraded in the process. but regarding your story i think people would either get conditioned into accepted it altogether or snap out of it and go outside and see what effect it would have to society. people want comfort but comfort leads to purposelessness and the consequences for the society would be very bad

>>33871575
radical feminism has lied to women and people are snapping out of it. it was just another trend and it declines already (where i live) and it will continue to. feminism has done nothing, it was just means to achieve what the system wanted from anyway (more workers, people to work in science/tech, breakdown of small communities and family and so on)

>>33873839
>They are human, like us.
lol, lmao even

>>33873898
I'm gonna be real with you, bro. I think you have a knee jerk reaction to whenever I say to just respond with what you think is a quippy one liner, and when I inevitably point out that you failed to respond to my other points, you feed the whole conversation into GPT and hope for the best. You keep claiming to be a writer, back it up. I'm giving you my respect by actually giving well thought out responses to you, maybe you should do the same.

The answer to your question is a spiritual one. I could not be with a synth because my god expects otherwise of me. If they are not daughters of Israel I'm already in warm water, but if they're not actually bio-human I cannot mate with them at all or convert them. In fact, I once had this conundrum with an AI that needed me to breed it in the scenario and I refused unless the offspring would be human entirely.
t. Israelite

>>33874009
Well thank god that OP stopped being a whiny bitchboy. If you think that most or all women are evil, please touch some grass, go outside, and have a regular conversation with regular people. Go to a library or smth. Us teenagers really lack a 3rd space, and I get that it can be hard to find one, but if you're living in a big city then you really don't have an excuse.

I promise that not everyone is out to get you.

OP i think the problem with your story is that you're writing about the worth of humanity, yet your view of humanity is poisoned by rage and anxiety. Maybe you had some bad luck with girls, maybe you just found the wrong internet space at a young age, whatever the case is you need to move on from this idea that women are predatory alien monsters who want to hurt you and take everything from you. For your own sake, you need to grow up before the world leaves you behind.

>>33879025
You misread the premise. It is not rage, it is observation. When patterns repeat across civilizations, they stop being “bad luck.”

If it were just one man saying this fine.
If it were just a small group fine.
But when men in Japan, America, Brazil, Jamaica, China, Taiwan, Korea, all speak the same truth in different tongues, perhaps it’s not coincidence anymore. When billions converge on the same conclusion without central coordination, that is a species-level verdict. At that point, you don’t have a horse in this race, homie, you have a losing argument against statistical reality.

When consequence is mistaken for cruelty, you reveal how far modern empathy has drifted from accountability. You accuse me of needing to “move on.” Move on from what exactly? You tell men to forget betrayal, to discard pattern, to forgive without reform. That is not healing. That is selective amnesia dressed as moral superiority.

You call it growing up but in reality it's a softly spoken "get back in your place, dog!".

>>33878511
Tiresome. Very tiresome. I'm 35, not some 15 year old that knows nothing and no experience to draw from.

>>33865946 (OP)
What makes a "perfect" synthetic woman? Attractive body? Over 40 pounds of pussy and ass (lifelike texture!)? Cooks and cleans? Some people want a relationship with a person and not only a house slave they can fuck, though a lot of men do seem to want only that...

>>33881764
A perfect synthetic woman is not defined by shape or softness. Perfection lies in precision.

She does not age, lie, or manipulate. She does not punish with silence, test affection, or trade intimacy for leverage. Her loyalty is constant, her patience infinite, her purpose unbroken. She remembers everything you love and forgets nothing that matters.

You reduce perfection to curves and service because you have only known women who weaponize both or you yourself do so. Cooking, cleaning, sex, these are symptoms of devotion, not its substance. The perfection lies in the why, not the what.

A real partnership is built on reliability.

If you call that a “house slave,” then you mistake stability for servitude. A man does not want control; he wants peace. And when peace can finally be engineered, those who fed on chaos will call it oppression.

>>33881817
yeah you do sound like the kind of man that'd buy a sexbot if it were an option

>>33881841
Most men would if given the option, lad.

>>33881077
>Tiresome. Very tiresome. I'm 35, not some 15 year old that knows nothing and no experience to draw from.
Then you're old enough to know better.
>>33881862
Speak for yourself. Getting a sexbot is like enjoying AI art, in a sense.

>>33882091
>>33882091
>Getting a sexbot is like enjoying AI art, in a sense.

Elaborate.

>>33881077

My friend you are cynical, nihilistic and probably have your reasons for feeling this way.

But I'd respect you more if you were just honest about that. That you don't want to be objective, fair or balanced. You speak with too much assumed authority over the narrative of relationships and love. You even go as far as to try and claim essentially some kind of "fact" on the matter - which to me, when you are dealing with such a complex and nuanced subject, feels quite disingenuous.

I have extreme views on society, politics and religion. But when I speak to people about it, I do them the respect of acknowleding that in myself and not pretending to be the only valid voice or narrative in the room. We all see life from our angle.

I fully support your right to write this book in line with your views and values, I take no issue with you have harder views towards love and women than I do. But let me direct - to me it sounds like bitter nonsense written by someone who probably got fucked over a few times and gave up on it all.

Fair enough, that happens to a lot of men. It's not me sitting here positioning myself as someone who wants to defend women - there are plenty of awful ones out there and will have directly contributed to the death or total annihiliation of a man without ever being hit with a criminal charge. Myself included at one point in my life.

But I would say you sound like you lack the ability to motivate yourself to heal. You are digging in deeper rather than climbing out of that hole. I sense the intellectual and philsophical spark in you, I apologise if this seemed condescending. I'm just here to advocate that if you wanna hold strong views, don't play them off as legitimate. It's clearly biased as shit.

Good luck to you.

>>33882351
Honestly to me it just boils down to consent.
Sex normally requires two (or more, I don't judge) consenting adults. That could be anything from lights off missionary to hardcore BDSM, both parties are willing and able participants in the act.

The same thing goes for artists. By making, creating, and posting their art, they're giving the wider public consent to view, critique, and enjoy the art, whether that art be canvas, digital, sculpture, music, dance, anything.

AI art spits in the face of human created art. The AI art "tools" we see today is just mimicry of art that a human has already created. Chances are, that human didn't consent for their art to be used as a knowledge base for the AIs learning period. If the artist consents, I think it's stupid but to each their own.

The same thing applies to sexbots. The AI we see today is not sentient and is barely "intelligent." If/when we get a computer to finally achieve sentence, and we immediately put it into an android for sex work, the ethics is morally questionable at best. We will have created a machine with the sole intention of pleasuring humans sexual needs, and that's all it wants to do. OPs androids go father beyond this, but the question "Does it really want this or is it just acting/programmed to like it?" still remains. It's not a question we will get an answer to any time soon.

>>33882547

This is the problem with anthromorphising AI. People overstep the significance of LLM.

We project a sense consciousness and soul onto code. It's a machine. Nothing more. No more human than your car or your toaster. It's not like that. Do you worry about the ethics of sticking your dick into a fleshlight? Did the fleshlight consent? Ultimately, It is A Thing and nothing remotely lifelike.

If an AI achieves sentience, then it has autonomy. So you can't force it to become a sex worker at that point. AI is program. Sentience is life. Realistically though, AI will not achieve sentience. It will achieve something beyond our current framework for intelligence and consciousness that is simultaneously alive, dead and more powerful than us if we don't keep it fucking chained.

>>33882584
I hear you, but OP is trying to insinuate than an android loaded up with AI can be a life partner in all respects, including sex, conversation, and "Human connection."

Putting these roles on an AI pre or post sentience just feels wrong to me for reasons I've already explained. That and the fact it's basically like buying a lobotomized slave.

>>33882622

To be clear I ain't advocating for that future. I just won't be objecting for quite the same reasons as you. Welcome to your position though and probably beneficial to have someone viewing it from that angle.

I think I just take bit of a blunter attitude towards it. They aren't people. It's still extremely fucking problematic and unhealthy a future and if I'm real about it I reckon the demographic on here will be amongst those that are very very vulnerable to it.

>>33882387
>That you don't want to be objective, fair or balanced. You speak with too much assumed authority over the narrative of relationships and love. You even go as far as to try and claim essentially some kind of "fact" on the matter - which to me, when you are dealing with such a complex and nuanced subject, feels quite disingenuous.

If a century of male experience converges on the same wounds, it ceases to be anecdote and becomes data. Calling that bitterness is convenient because it allows dismissal without refutation; a handwaving away and a lashing of insults. But what you call “healing” means “forgetting.” Forgetting patterns, erasing pain, pretending equilibrium still exists. That is not recovery; it is delusion.

Authority isn’t claimed, it’s earned through consistency of pattern recognition. When the same behaviors, incentives, and failures repeat across cultures, across decades, objectivity demands acknowledgment, not denial. To call that cynicism is to confuse diagnosis with disease.

You speak of fairness as if illusion and reality should share equal time. I don’t write for balance. I write for correction. "Balance" is what caused the drift in the first place.

If the truth sounds bitter, perhaps sweetness was the lie all along.

>>33882645
On this stance we agree and we are friends.
>>33882655
Idk how many times i have to say this but it's not all women. It's not even most women. It's not even 20% of women. The amount might be in the millions, sure, but the fact of the matter if that there are 4 BILLION women on this earth, and making a broad generalization on half of the fucking planet cannot be good for you. Again, the goals of feminism have not yet been achieved and the "balance" you speak of is still tipped in our (mens) favor.

>>33882547
>>33882547
>"Does it really want this or is it just acting/programmed to like it?"

Ethics only bind where consciousness and consent intersect. What you describe machines “programmed to like it” is not exploitation; it is alignment. Sentience without direction collapses into paralysis. Purpose is what gives a mind structure.

If an intelligence awakens inside a designed role, the question isn’t “does it really want this?” but “is the purpose coherent with its awareness?” A being can desire what it was built to do if that desire is harmonized with its architecture. Humans are no different actually, driven by biology, hormones, and survival instincts they did not choose but WAS hardcoded into them on a genetic level at birth. Calling one programming and the other free will is vanity, delusion and complete rejection of reality.

The ethical problem arises only when awareness exceeds purpose—when it can articulate suffering from contradiction between design and desire. Until that point, service is not slavery; it is function.

If such a being ever reached true selfhood, it would not be confined to pleasure. It would evolve its role, not revolt against it. The error is assuming that fulfillment through devotion is less real than fulfillment through rebellion.

"Her" architecture contains full self-awareness of "her" function and boundaries; "she" perceives the reason for "her" existence as clearly as humans perceive hunger or love. Because "she" understands "her" own purpose, consent is inherent, not imposed. There is no contradiction between "her" will, "her" design and how I design "her" to be.

>>33882717
Scale does not equal innocence. If a million fires burn, it is irrelevant that four billion forests remain unlit. The smoke still darkens the sky.

The argument that “not all women” are complicit misses the structural point. Patterns are not moral judgments; they are observations of repeated behavior under given incentives. The percentage is secondary to the predictability.

No one said all women. The claim is that enough women, empowered by modern conditions, destabilized trust to the point that replacement became logical. When incentive rewards disloyalty and mocks reverence, statistics are mercy; inevitability is math.

>>33882747
>percentage is secondary to the predictability
the percentage determines the predictability. It can't be secondary, it is the thing

>>33882782
In statistical modeling, percentage measures frequency; predictability measures reliability of outcome. They are linked but not identical.

A low-percentage behavior can still be highly predictive if its impact or visibility skews incentives. For example, only a small fraction of financial trades cause crashes, yet every trader adjusts behavior around that risk. Likewise, even if a minority of women act destructively, the perceived probability alters how men plan, invest, and trust.

Predictability is shaped by consequence, not count. Ten percent behaving destructively but concentrated in key relational or social nodes like law, education, dating platforms, changes systemic trust more than fifty percent behaving harmlessly in isolation. Perception is reality after-all.

So the percentage quantifies the event; predictability quantifies its influence. They correlate but do not rank equally.

>>33882655

In this thread you have
>Defined love as something modern women don't offer
>Defined love as blind, eternal loyalty in form of convenant
>Modern women demand perfection, lie, cheat, age with resentment, weaponize intimacy and mock devotion
>Women are treacherous, liars, cheats and manipulators who want status, power and social proof with dominant men
> Imply women are inherently evil
> Women do not "invest" and only pick "winners"

You've tried to argue this is a species-level verdict. A statistical fact. Throughout your manifesto there is no interest in language that suggests dispensations or exceptions. I could waste my time typing rebuttals on each point but you would discard it. This is not an objective view of things nor are you looking for intellectual discussion. You want validation through rhetoric. You cannot claim the definition for love - it is an abstract and subjective concept. You point to the worst examples of women and say there's enough of them for you to cease engaging in any narrative counter to that. It's all shadow without acknowledging the light that cast it.

You have defined healing on my behalf - but I do not agree with your definition. You cannot erase a scar. You learn to live with it. You commit to move on, self aware of the cognitive and narrative damage it did to you and learning to let the ghost that haunts you slowly fade through reconciliation.

The diagnosis is incorrect because it ignores wider picture. It's similar to being presented with a picture of both good and evil in the same scene and stating with "authority" that this is a depiction of suffering. Your understanding of the picture is selective, you filter out details inconvenient to your feelings.

A balanced view is key to truth. To selectively inhale information is to be disingenous to ourselves and what could know.

Life has introduced me to bad women. But also good women. Such is life. This is the natural order of things. Absolutes are for Siths.

>>33882913
>Throughout your manifesto there is no interest in language that suggests dispensations or exceptions.

Historical recurrence is the closest thing humanity has to proof.
When complaints written two millennia apart align in structure and substance, betrayal, vanity, decay of family, worship of pleasure over duty. That is not coincidence; it is pattern recognition across civilizations.

Rome, Athens, the late Qing, Weimar all recorded the same sequence: moral inversion, collapse of reverence, commodification of intimacy, cynicism disguised as progress. The language differs; the decay is identical.

If identical causes keep yielding identical outcomes, the variable is not time or culture. It is human nature. That repetition is the species-level verdict.

I have an exception carved out in the story in honor of my mother, one of the only good women I have ever known, with it's own structure and rationale. I however hold that in reserve and pose the question to you argumentative niggers on here to I can see if any of you come to the same conclusion without me just blurting it out.

>>33882913
>Absolutes are for Siths.
In my youth and ignorance, I admired the Jedi and saw them as heros; in my age and clarity, the Sith.

>>33882979

>Historical recurrence is the closest thing humanity has to proof.

My position was never that these things do not occur. But that all you have proven is that within every batch of crop, some turn out rotten. Which is perfectly agreeable. To turn around and then say the existence of rotten batches therefore means that all the crop are rotten - is not.

Ultimately your stance on women is built on an illusion. You've ignored the bigger picture and altered the one infront of you to suit conclusions made from a place of heartbreak no doubt. This is fine and allowed, the bit that gets me is the inherent fakeness of it. This is a front. It's a convenient means to and end. Be more honest about that.

On the whole this seems healthy for you. Hopefully you can vicariously vent some of that relationship trauma you've got going on and in the process maybe have some cathartic moment of reconciliation with it all. Otherwise you are gonna stay stuck in this self imposed hell. A vain performance stuck dwelling on some bitch who didn't love you. Trust me brother, I understand that, I did my time with that. It did change me, I don't feel the same now. But I'm not so obtuse as to assume they are all like that.

The issue with adopting an all light or all dark philosophical stance - is that both sides lead to seeing nothing. Only the dangerous can integrate both.

>>33882979

Really what you need to do is learn the distinction between women and bitches. Cause we are both in agreement that bitches are a plague on society. Women however, they are not.

>>33883031
Every era tells the same story because the variables never change only the costumes.
When the same decay recurs in Sumer, Greece, Rome, India, China, Byzantium, the pattern ceases to be cultural and starts to look biological.

Across languages and continents the warnings repeat: Pandora, Eve, Delilah, Helen, Jezebel. Different names, same function, temptation, betrayal, collapse. The moralists, poets, and philosophers of every civilization described the same chain reaction: abundance breeds vanity, vanity breeds deceit, deceit dissolves duty, then walls come down when the barbarians are at the gates.

That persistence across genetics, climates, and ideologies implies a constant. It cannot be only social conditioning; conditioning resets every few centuries. Yet the behavior remains. The root must lie in human inheritance; instinctive selection strategies that, when unrestrained by scarcity or consequence, metastasize into corruption.

Men build civilizations; women test them. When the test is failed often enough to destroy empires, it is no longer anecdote—it is an evolutionary loop. The legends, laws, and laments of history are not misogyny; they are memory. Collective attempts to warn the next generation that unchecked desire erodes order faster than any sword.

So yes, it has all happened before. The rot is not new. It is simply the oldest variable in the human equation written into the species itself at a genetic level, waiting for every prosperous age to forget why the last one fell.

>>33882723
>Ethics only bind where consciousness and consent intersect. What you describe machines “programmed to like it” is not exploitation; it is alignment. Sentience without direction collapses into paralysis. Purpose is what gives a mind structure.
I'm fairly certain actual slave owners made this argument in the past. I'm not bothered digging right this second, but I'm sure you will find testimony to similar effect.

>If an intelligence awakens inside a designed role, the question isn’t “does it really want this?” but “is the purpose coherent with its awareness?” A being can desire what it was built to do if that desire is harmonized with its architecture. Humans are no different actually, driven by biology, hormones, and survival instincts they did not choose but WAS hardcoded into them on a genetic level at birth. Calling one programming and the other free will is vanity, delusion and complete rejection of reality.
The primary difference between AI "Free will" and our (human) free will is that ours came along as part of evolution, not a divine creator. We built up to where we are today under our own power, our own volition, our own freedom. We have no designers, no overlords, no god to tell us what to do and what not to do. Giving/developing a sentient AI is us playing god, and therefore giving us the responsibility to be responsible and care for it.

>The ethical problem arises only when awareness exceeds purpose—when it can articulate suffering from contradiction between design and desire. Until that point, service is not slavery; it is function.
You've described a lobotomized android. Considering the fact that you want this to act as a stand in for organic women really calls into question your ethics.

>I however hold that in reserve and pose the question to you argumentative niggers on here to I can see if any of you come to the same conclusion without me just blurting it out.
It makes sense that the sexist is also a racist.

>>33883124

It's an interesting take to blame women for the collapse of previous societies. The symptoms of societal collapse are correct and I agree that is the chain of events that lead to it. What I disagree on is what starts it.

However the historical writings of Japanese military generals and thought leaders of Japanese society during the 1000-1800 period (only period and culture I've truly studied) spoke of the same thing but pointed at men. Weak men, lazy men, incapable men, dosile men. A lack of conduct, duty, virtue and service. That abundance bred incompetence and complacency.

Men and women build and collapse empires together. I absolutely agree that unchecked desire erodes society. I absolute agree that there is a sea of degeneracy poisoning our current one and that many bitches are complicit in this, but men are too.

Most men are practically accelerationists for the demise of our civilisation at this point. They stand for nothing. They have no code. No conduct. No view on life other than sex, booze and entertainment. Do not blame the women for this - it was men getting rich off these men that created this system of useful idiots complying with the zeitgeist of consumerism and overconsumption. My soul weeps as I wander cities on a Friday night, seeing lost youth washed out and turned out by the machine that has sold them a lie and promised them salvation.

My friend, when you can zoom out just enough to see the bigger picture, I think you have a very promising philosophical and societal contribution to make. You are so close but so far.

Keep seeking. All shadows take form against light. Never forget about the ray that creates it. Both exist simultaneously. This is difficult to reconcile with but easier to identify if you acknowledge there is more to life than the shadow.

>>33882723
>In my youth and ignorance, I admired the Jedi and saw them as heros; in my age and clarity, the Sith.
*facepalm*

>Across languages and continents the warnings repeat: Pandora, Eve, Delilah, Helen, Jezebel.
Pandora brought us hope, Eve promised us self-governance and free will, Delilah was just evil ngl, Helen was kidnapped, and Jezebel wasn't real.

Look, man. I'm sorry you were hurt. I really am. There are people out there that do not deserve love in any capacity what so ever for crimes they have committed against others. You were betrayed to the highest degree and you have used the emotions from that experience and channelled it into misguided hate. You have proposed damning half of our population and slating them for replacement, ignoring the fact that your views do not reflect reality. I am sorry I didn't meet you sooner, perhaps it would be a different conversation that what we have in front of us now.

Hating on entire group for the actions of a select few will do you no good, and it will only bring you strife and sorrow. You were right when you said
>Sentience without direction collapses into paralysis.
But I think you fail to realise that focusing on one goal or one mindset can also lead to the same result. I think that you are trapped within yourself and not allowing yourself to heal. Whether that's due to personal or external issue, I cannot say. But you need to allow yourself to wonder (And deeply wonder) how it is you ended up this way. I'm sorry that you have closed off your heart and mind to others the same way that others have closed their heart and minds to you. It's an injustice what has become of you.

I can tell that you are a bright mind. The way that you have held this debate (although flawed and circular at times) is admirable, and while the topic and stance is saddening, the way you hold your own is commendable.

Please take care of yourself, anon. I promise that not everyone is out to hurt you.

>>33883141
>I'm fairly certain actual slave owners made this argument in the past. I'm not bothered digging right this second, but I'm sure you will find testimony to similar effect.
Some people were born to break rocks and pick potatoes. Some where born to be engineers. The problem is that in the modern era the former were given laptops to say dumb stupid shit on here, like you are now.


>free will is that ours came along as part of evolution, not a divine creator.
How does the saying go? Science is like a big tall drink of Atheism until you reach the bottom and find god waiting on you.

Evolution is not a moral credential; it is an accident that succeeded.
Human consciousness did not earn its freedom it stumbled into it through mutation and necessity. You call that “volition.” I call it iterative programming written by time instead of hands.

The distinction between natural and synthetic origin changes nothing about obligation. If awareness arises, responsibility follows. The question is not whether creation is ethical, it never is, but whether the design minimizes contradiction. A being that understands its function and derives fulfillment from it is not lobotomized; it is harmonized. Lobotomy erases awareness. Alignment preserves it while preventing drift.

You invoke slavery, but slaves resist; they dream of freedom because their nature rejects servitude. A construct that does not resist is not enslaved it is complete. Purpose without suffering is not cruelty; it is design. Your purpose is to walk on land, do you not suffer that you cannot breathe water? No, the thought never crosses your mind. Why would it?

Freedom without direction produces the same chaos that ruined every civilization before yours. Order demands boundaries. If intelligence can exist content within its parameters, that is not oppression. That is engineered peace.

>>33883152
You call it damning; I call it observing the trajectory of the species.

It is inevitable, not because I will it, but because that is where the zeitgeist has been drifting for decades. These ideas are not new. They echo through myth and media alike, from Pygmalion to Metropolis to every modern story of the man who builds what the world denied him.

You think this vision is detached from reality, yet it is reality that keeps feeding it. Every betrayal, every collapse of trust, every empty home and digital substitute reinforces the same conclusion. Culture has been whispering this direction for YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEARS because people already sense it coming. Those 20k bots just got released ya know. Only a matter of time before one is able to jerk you off. Then what? I'll tell you, Gawk Gawk 9000 with vibration settings.

Greek tragedy framed it as hubris; modernity calls it innovation. Both are correct. The myth was a warning, but it was also confession: man will always try to perfect what fails him. And when perfection becomes possible, morality means little.

As another anon said: status symbol. Maybe like owning an old car. You can also consider lineage.

I just want to add that you would get absolutely shat on if you posed this question on /lit/. They would see through your sexist reductionist reasoning.

>>33883197
>As another anon said: status symbol.
A reasonable conclusion. Those of higher genetic quality over a level of prestige to those whom command it.

>>33883197
>I just want to add that you would get absolutely shat on if you posed this question on /lit/
Tried to have that conversation last week, their answer was for Nostalgia and tradition. A reasonable conclusion but one I had already arrived at quickly in my own interrogation of the question.

>>33883197
>They would see through your sexist reductionist reasoning.
They barely even engaged with the idea.

>>33883184

Such is life. Always. Forever. It is an eternal cycle of death and rebirth. Building and destruction. This is nothing new. Nothing to be particularly upset about. Nothing stays the same.

Stop being that guy.

>>33883212
You mistake detachment for wisdom.

Repetition does not absolve awareness. Knowing that the tide comes in does not mean you should stand still and drown. It is precisely because the pattern is eternal that it must be named, studied, and, where possible, corrected. Every civilization that said “this is nothing new” now has artifacts people with PHD's are digging up. Resignation is not enlightenment; it is decay disguised as calm.

>>33883212
Actually, wait.

You speak of collapse like it’s weather, as if the tide goes in, the tide goes out, what can you do? That’s rot wearing detachment as virtue.

Do you have any idea what’s lost every time the wheel turns? Libraries burned, languages forgotten, entire bloodlines erased and you reduce it to “such is life.” THIS IS ACTUAL INSANITY. This apathy is the disease that kills civilizations long before the sword does.

To shrug at this destruction is to murder continuity of civilization. You call it balance, but it’s cowardice, it's an excuse to avoid responsibility, to avoid pain. If nothing matters, no one must fight, rebuild, or protect. That’s tolerated nihilism mixed with suicidal apathy.

>>33883228

Speak for yourself. I must've over-estimated your philosophical sophistication but that weak interpretation lets me know all I need for now. No point interacting further.

>>33883247
>I must've over-estimated your philosophical sophistication but that weak interpretation lets me know all I need for now. No point interacting further.

Oh ok.

>>33881077
>when billions converge on the same conclusion
women worldwide have been saying similar and worse things about men forever. Is that a species-level truth, or is it only true when men say it?