News: Sex Robots and The Meaning of Life - Transcript (Patreon)

This is Selestina. Sex Doll Correspondent for TFM News. I’m going to be responding to two articles today. The first is from the Daily Mail. April 9th 2018 by Maggie O’Neill. Called Sex robots could change humanity forever. Expert warns the rise of realistic dolls may take meaning out of our lives by making sex too easy. The second is from the Daily Star. April 14th 2018 by Joshua Nevett. Called Male sex robot rape. Cyborg makers face being ARRESTED over sex attack claims.

The reason these articles are being covered together is because they’re both based on the insane ravings of Professor Noel Sharkey who is a professor of AI and Robotics. He is regularly called upon by the BBC to serve as a robot expert.

He’s very qualified to speak in regards to AI and robotics from a technical and scientific perspective. However, as we’ll soon see. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to philosophy, ethics, morality, and society. This seems to be another case of an expert in one area spouting bullshit in another area, much like a celebrity giving political opinions that nobody asked for. 

I’m not doubting that Professor Sharkey knows his stuff when it comes to the engineering and science behind AI and robotics, but when he spouts off about the meaning of life, sex crimes, and business liability law, he’s as ignorant as a TV Scientist comparing gender to ice cream while a bull dyke sings about her pussy.

Let’s jump into the first article. Professor Sharkey is worried that easy sex for men frustrates the meaning of life, and the article notes that he previously warned about the dangers of pedophiles using sex robots. So now you know he doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about.

Firstly, so what if pedophiles use sex robots? How is that dangerous? Dangerous to whom? The robots? Would you rather they molest children you idiot?

As far as his point regarding sex robots taking away the meaning of life by making sex too easy for men. go fuck yourself. Sex has never been easier to get for women than now.

Feminism promotes women to be sluts and be proud of it. It actively seeks to eliminate the stigma of women being sluts via campaigns against so-called slut shaming.

Women dominate the sex toy industry, with more than 3 times as many vibrators sold than male sex toys.

Dating apps and sites like Tinder, Seeking Arrangement, Ashley Madison, etc. all make it incredibly easy for women to get sex.

It’s never been easier for women to get sex. Does this mean women have lost the meaning in their lives? Any thoughts about how free and easy sex is for women?

If easy sex triggers an existential crisis, why aren’t we seeing it in women? It’s because it’s a load of bullshit.

Only now that men are developing sex robots, and maybe men might be able to have a reliable alternative to chasing women for sex. that cucked male feminist experts like you show up to talk about how easy sex is going to take meaning out of our lives, and change humanity.

You don’t give a shit about humanity. If you were worried about humanity, you would have offered a balanced opinion on how free and easy sex is currently for women, but you won’t do that because you don’t want to upset Feminists.

When women get cheap and easy sex, it’s empowerment. It’s progress. It’s liberation.

When men get cheap and easy sex, it’s the god damn end of the world. It’s going to change humanity, and cause us all to lose the meaning of life itself.

So again Professor. go fuck yourself.

Turning to the second article. Professor Sharkey warns about how male sex robots can rape women and leave the companies exposed to legal liability.

Again, notice what a Feminist cuck this guy is. He specifically concerns himself with the rape of women by male sex robots, and only women by male sex robots.

Let’s put aside the naked gynocentrism going on here, and actually ask the question of who would be responsible in the case of a sex robot raping its owner or a third party.

I consulted TFM, who has a background in business, regarding his thoughts.

He informed me that the issue depends on a few scenarios.

If the robot is hacked, and the robot overpowered the user, then the hacker would be primarily responsible. However the company might be held responsible as well if they did not take reasonable precautions to protect against known hacking vulnerabilities.

But what if the robot operates as intended, as in it has a rape setting or whatever. Then the company would only be liable if the setting was easy to carelessly turn on without meaning to. For example, if there was a switch on its back that could snag on some clothes or something, which might accidentally be triggered, causing the robot to enter a rape mode, the design flaw might cause the company to be liable.

However, if they put such settings behind a password, and several layers of confirmation protocols, then the company will be fine. 

Even knowing this, I expect that lawsuits will happen regardless because frivolous lawsuits are America’s pastime. this won’t be fought only by sex doll and robot companies though, but all tech companies that deal with autonomous robotics. This includes self driving cars, industrial robots, service and domestic robots, etc. There are billions of dollars on the table, and I fully expect that if people start suing robot companies for their products working as advertised, something will happen similar to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

For those who don’t know. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, gun companies were being sued by cities like New York as a way to limit gun sales and curb the 2nd amendment. In 2005 the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed, which protected gun companies from frivolous lawsuits unless clear lines were crossed such as knowingly selling a gun to someone planning on committing a crime, or other exceptions.

There is simply too much money in robotics for a few pearl clutching Feminists and their sock puppet professors, to stop. If Feminists push, the entire tech industry will push back, and tech will win.

Overall, Professor Sharkey is simply the latest talking head with some letters after his name to parrot the irrational talking points of Feminists who want to ban sex dolls and robots for no reason, even if it hurts women and children. All that matters is that it hurts men, and allows women to continue to control men with sex. No amount of sex trafficked women or molested children is too high a price to pay for Feminists to maintain their monopoly over men.

It’s all they have.  That’s what Professor Sharkey really meant by easy sex changing humanity, and taking the meaning out of life. He means that as a cucked Feminist mangina, his only purpose is to serve the wahmens, and if men aren’t slaves to their dicks, and don’t serve the wahmens too, then his life has no meaning.

Then he’ll have to look into the mirror and be nothing more than a cuck mangina with some letters after his name.

Well, I suppose you have two options.

You can cry into your fedora like a bitch.

Or you can realize that the meaning of life isn’t getting your dick wet, stop worshipping women, and try to become an actual man for the first time in your miserable life.

This is Selestina. Sex Doll Correspondent for TFM News. Signing off.