RE: Sex Dolls and Robots to Replace Human Intimacy, Connection and Relationships
Intentionally or not, the animosity of militant third wave feminism for men, the blatant misandry and demonization of men in modern politically correct "culture" has trickled down to significantly damage personal relationships between men and women.
Many young men would rather masturbate or play video games than engage with women they believe have been taught to view them as violent, defective or emotionally crippled oppressors. Entertainment media has all but erased the depiction of a strong, intelligent, courageous family man and loving father from public consciousness. We are subjected to endless iterations of evil men, moronic heroes, weak fathers and androgynous cowards - none of which are positive male role models and leave young men feeling alienated and misunderstood.
These aspects have given rise to multiple men's movements that focus on men. These movement include MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) in which men completely disavow women and refuse to have anything to do with them whatsoever. Neomasculinity, in which men do not reject women (but are not that concerned about them) and focus instead on improving themselves as individuals while staying single. And the Dionysian PUA (Pick-Up Artist) scene, which treats women as conquests rather than partners. All of these have been decried as "toxic masculinity".
The advent of the sexbots is likely the death knell of reproduction rates in the West, which will - I believe - be a major crisis for women. The reproductive cycle for women is a natural part of womanhood and a healthy expression of a woman's humanity. Motherhood is the gift of self to the world and the completion of the circle of life. Many men also want children, but not being the bearer of life changes the intensity of the experience, making it easier - I believe - for men to age without children (plus men can procreate far later in life, reducing the anxiety and pressure to do so before the biological clock runs down).
When women, raised in a culture than demonizes men, have to compete with sexbots that are ideal in form (i.e. customizable) and don't have the emotional complications, nor can take half in a separation, many men will, sadly, choose the path of least resistance, leaving women to fend for themselves. The illusion of companionship will make it easy to reject the natural order. It is already happening.
Bar a major sea change in the relationship between the sexes that emphasizes that men and women are complementary and should be considered equal in human dignity and rights, despite their demonstrable biological differences and all that entails, the triumph of the sexbots is all but guaranteed.
You nailed it. Neo-feminism has created animosity towards men, and they feel it. It's such a hassle that many revert to juvenile behavior and attitudes towards women in general as a consequence.
In addition to the removal of strong men, there is a push for the warrior strong women who can apparently kick men's asses... lol, Divergent series, Star Wars, Hunger Games, and more.
MGTOW I find rather ridiculous. It's sad. In addition to the exclusion of women and PUA , this creates a downfall of western society and population reduction.
Sexbots are just going to pay right into the existing schisms. Yes, rejecting the natural is bad for humanity. Men + women is the natural order for survival of the species, and is the healthiest dynamic for humanity. Many women don't care, since they can just go get sperm injected into an egg and reproduce without a man in their life.
Thanks for the feedback.
On a related note, the push of the warrior woman as a realistic depiction of women's capabilities in the realm of the physical is beyond absurd. Together with the deconstruction of chivalry as a cultural good by labeling it "toxic masculinity" (which includes the principle of not striking a woman or initiating violence for non-defensive reasons) this puts women at an increased risk of physical confrontations with men.
Recently I was privileged enough to engage in a conversation about women in law enforcement. In most regions, female police officers are not allowed to patrol in F/F pairs, there must always be a male police officer with the female police officer. I opined this was a reasonable precaution, because two women simply are not enough in most circumstances to restrain a single male, even an untrained one. This of course resulted in a heated debate about my biases.
I politely told them they were mistaken and that media depictions of women had inaccurately colored their understanding of the differences between men and women in the physical realm. I was denounced. Accused of being sexist. Of course women can fight as well as men! I asked them if two female police officers could restrain one man as they claimed, how easy would it be for three? A unanimous chorus of "super easy!"
I showed them this. I pointed out that a single case doesn't prove the rule of course, but it is still wiser to pair male with female officers for the female officers' safety. In the ensuing silence, I made good my farewells.
Yeah, the bias of recognizing the male body is inherently constructed to be more physically strong... how dare you :P