Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I find it funny when basement dwelling moids:marseyneckbeard: say s*x dolls will replace women like women should be mad. Dysgenic men will be sexually satisfied and stop harassing women? How is that bad? :marseyxd:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've seen people bring this up but only the most obstinant of feminists agree with it. Most women get personally offended at the idea of a man chosing a silicon doll over pursuing women. Their issue is that their role can be automated but there isn't an equivelent for replacing a man because the things women look for in a partner (provider, protector, stoicly dependable) can't be readily artificially created.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I fully expect society to return to polygamy, in the one-chad-with-five-wives form. For one generation, it will be utopian, as the bottom 80% of scrotes will descend into their basements and never reproduce. However, the sons of the chads that do reproduce will not be happy, as now rather than having the bottom 80% of men who don't get to marry be gross incels, they're chads, and will thus take violent retribution against the society they perceive to be denying them women.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Keep in mind shitty foid genetics also make incels, so not all of them will be chads.

And those incels would just plug themselves into the sexbots and VR copes like the last generation of incels in this scenario.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Right now, under 80-20/AFBB theory, a woman can rely on the pressure exerted by the underclass's desperation to profit or get a better deal, even with the top males, or settle down if she so wants. What happens when all that porn/OF money, all the simping and attention, and the sexual frustration goes into AI generated images and sexbots who will never say no?

AI BF will be less popular, as sexbots will always be low status, can't provide, and would presumably not be programmed to be able to assert themselves against humans, as either a protector or sexual dominant.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseythumbsup:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>too long to be understood, too short to be laughed at by longpostbot

:marseyitsover:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:marseyloveyou:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.