Studies show sex robots increasingly unsafe

The following “fake news” article was inspired by this real article and was written for your entertainment.

July 18, 2068

By: Nathan Green

WASHINGTON – Growing numbers of men are concerned that their Total Lifestyle Companions™ (TLCs™) may be unsafe after numerous reports of hacking, often by ex-wives. The hacked TLCs™ have been reported to turn against their owners by making disparaging remarks, destroying items in the home, and even committing acts of violence. In response to this growing issue, TLC™ owner Hugh Hogbottom has founded a non-profit organization called Consumers of Robots Advocacy Protection or “C.R.A.P.” which, according to its website, exists to “Protect the interests of owners of all personal robotic devices” by “researching, lobbying and making safety issues known to the public.”

I was able to speak to Hogbottom in his home in Northwest Washington. On the day of my visit, his TLC™, named Bobbi, was properly behaved. She welcomed me into the home and served coffee for us as we sat in the living room to chat. The house looked tidy and cared for, and Hogbottom told me it had been over a week since the last incident.

“She behaves most of the time, but there have been a few incidents,” he said. “I’m constantly on edge because I don’t know what might happen next.”

Photo credit:

He shows me the one piece of evidence he has of Bobbi’s misbehaviour, although, as he explains, most of the incidents haven’t been recorded. The piece of evidence is a slip of paper that was supposed to have been a shopping list.

“I told Bobbi to write some things down that I needed,” he said. “I dictated some items to her, but when I looked at what she had written, instead of seeing my list, it said: ‘Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless piece of shit.’ I was shocked. At first I didn’t understand what had happened.”

At six-foot-three, with an athletic build, Hogbottom appears to be a pillar of strength, but when he speaks of his betrayal by Bobbi I see the weariness and pain in his eyes.

As well as the shopping list incident, there have been many incidents of Bobbi making shocking remarks to him, sometimes in front of friends. On one occasion, Hogbottom says he was telling his friends about the time when he gave his ex a triple-orgasm, and Bobbi suddenly shouted “You lying bastard, you were absolutely pathetic in bed!” Hogbottom says he was shocked and humiliated.

“I began to suspect my ex-wife had hacked into Bobbi. I did marry an ‘organic’ woman before getting my TLC™, and I think she may be jealous. I left her five years ago because I wasn’t getting what I wanted out of the relationship, and I think she’s upset because she realizes the TLC™ is a more satisfactory partner than her. I ended up going online and finding lots of stories of the same thing happening to other men. I realized we needed to raise some awareness and protect ourselves.”

Indeed, men have been increasingly making these reports. According to research carried out by the C.R.A.P. foundation, 32% of men report that their former organic wives have at some point hacked into their personal robotic devices for malicious reasons. Of that group, 65% report that their robot has said something negative toward them, 86% say their robot has deliberately destroyed their home or possessions, and 7% say their robot has attempted to harm them during sex, by either strangulation or by cuts or burns to the penis. One man, Peter Clutterbuck, experienced the worst nightmare of men who use personal robotic devices: his robot, Tootsie, released a sharp blade through her front-hole during use, severing his penis. He says her front hole, which was usually a great device, had suddenly become “like a guillotine.” Clutterbuck joined the C.R.A.P foundation from his hospital bed, and vowed to “make sex robots safe again” so that nothing like this would happen to another man.

“It’s rough out there,” says Hugh Hogbottom, as he nervously sips his coffee. “Things are getting worse for men every day.”

So why do women do it? Hogbottom blames jealousy.

“Organic women know they can’t measure up to the appeal of robotic companions. My Total Lifestyle Companion™ is beautiful, doesn’t age, doesn’t nag me, keeps my house clean and always wants sex. My ex-wife couldn’t compete with that, and she knows it. That’s why she wants to hack the robot, to get even. I suspect this is the case in most hackings. What organic women need to realize is that 64% of men are now choosing robot partners over “organic” ones, because they are getting a better deal. This is progress, it’s the way of the future. If organic women want to compete, they’ll have to step up their game.”

I was able to track down Hogbottom’s ex-wife, Susan Solanas, to ask her for a statement. Although she did not reply to my request for an interview, I did find her personal blog where I was able to access the following comments:

“I can’t believe the things my stupid ex has been saying. We got a divorce because I found out he’d been cheating on me with several women. I asked him to go to marriage counselling and he refused, so I left him. Now he’s claiming that he left me because I wasn’t as good as his stupid sex robot. I was just going to ignore him at first, but he was writing social media posts full of lies on pages where I’d obviously find them, and it was getting so obnoxious I finally had to take him down a notch. I’m a computer programmer working in the area of control of AI, and the stupid knucklehead hasn’t changed any of his passwords since we were married, so I was able to get into his robot as easily as walking through an open door. I’ve been making the thing tell the truth whenever Hugh lies, which has been irritating the hell out of him.”

When I asked Hogbottom to comment on the content’s of Solanas’s blog, he called her a “jealous, lying bitch.”

Hogbottom believes that more research is needed to find out the reasons why the robots are getting hacked so often. He’s determined to find answers. He says a spokesman at the Total Lifestyle Companions™ company has already said they are working on ensuring the next generation of products are not hackable, but he doesn’t think this is enough.

A fundraising page on C.R.A.P.’s website says he has already reached $50,000 toward a large-scale research study on hacking by ex-wives. Donations have come largely from men and their non-men allies who don’t want to see anyone else get hurt. Hogbottom is optimistic that answers will be forthcoming.

At the time of publication, there is one notable comment on the C.R.A.P website that stands out from the others. While most comments are supportive, there is one comment from a user named “organicbitch” that reads “You can start by changing your passwords, stupid.”


Let’s talk about who’s actually hateful and bigoted here

Well, folks, I am back from a lovely and relaxing trip and ready to address the stinking pile of horseshit that people crapped onto my blog while I was away.

I published a guest post by a woman who was harassed at the Vancouver Dyke March, and her harasser showed up in the comments to continue the harassment. It’s absolutely amazing to me that a harasser can get called out on his harassment and then decide that the appropriate response is to continue harassing. How messed up of a person do you have to be to think that’s a good idea?

Mr. Wanda Normous made a feeble attempt to claim that he hadn’t harassed anyone by reporting that he didn’t use a loud voice when talking to her. However, he admitted in his own words to engaging in the following behaviours:

  • “follow around to counter your hateful message until you took it out of the park with you”
  • “walk or stand immediately outside of your personal space with my terror breasts exposed.”
  • “I used two tools to evict you”

In these quotes, Mr. Normous has admitted to following a lesbian around and being in her personal space with the purpose of “evicting” her from the march. This is clear harassment and intimidation.

Let’s take a moment to discuss who is actually hateful and bigoted in this situation. There is a trans march and a dyke march. No lesbians are on record as saying they do not think there should be a trans march. No lesbians have attended a trans march to intimidate anybody. Lesbians have not tried to take over the board of directors of a trans march and kick out the trans people from the march. This is something that trans people are doing to the dyke march, and it’s happening only in that direction. It’s not going both ways.

Speaking for myself, I have been to a trans march. While I was there I just stood on the sidelines and watched. I did not lecture anyone about what they may or may not put on their sign. I did not select a person whose sign I believed was objectionable and follow them around in order to intimidate them. I do not believe I have the right to dictate to trans people what they put on their signs in their own march, nor do I have a right to harass anyone. I believe it’s acceptable for Pride festivals to include a trans march and for trans people to show their pride about being trans. I do not wish to stand in the way of this.

All the dyke marches in every city that holds them have been taken over by queer politics and are now hostile toward anyone who understands what a woman is and what a lesbian is. Comments from lesbians are deleted from Dyke March Facebook pages in every city and marchers hold signs that say things like “No TERFs” to make it clear that actual female homosexuals are not welcome there. The Dyke Marches now cater exclusively to men and bisexual women who agree with queer politics.

There is no logical reason why trans people need to be centered or even invited at all to a dyke march, since THERE IS A TRANS MARCH. A dyke march should center dykes.

What is happening here is that female homosexuals are being completely kicked out of Pride festivals; we cannot have our own march any more, we cannot even speak about our exclusion without being labelled bigots. It’s not just that trans people wanted their own march, which would have been fine, but they wanted every march to cater exclusively to them.

It is abundantly clear that the actual hatred and bigotry here is coming from trans people and is being directed at lesbians. Claims that lesbians are excluding trans people are complete reversals of the truth.

Speaking of lies, Wanda Normous wrote some real whoppers in the comments on my last post.

He has claimed that  “your desire to exterminate transwomen is plain” and that “you only care about hurting and excluding transwomen” and that “you’re just deciding for folks whether or not they’re women.”

Neither I nor the writer of the guest post gave any indication that we wanted to “exterminate” transwomen. In order for this alleged “desire” to be “plain,” we would have had to express it. This claim is purely a product of Mr. Normous’s imagination. Just for the record, no, I do not wish to exterminate anyone.

Neither I nor the guest writer has an interest in hurting transwomen. As for exclusion, I do think that transwomen should be excluded from the dyke march, however I do not think they should be excluded from the trans march. It’s pretty basic logic that the dyke march is for dykes and the trans march is for trans people. Having a march for each group does not exclude anybody—holding a march for each group is actually inclusion. Questions: If transwomen should be included in the dyke march, then why even have separate marches? Why not just make it one big march? And if trans people should be included in the dyke march, does this also mean that dykes should be included in the trans march? Why or why not?

A sign that says “dyke power is female” does not exclude anybody. It’s true that dykes are female. Stating a simple and neutral fact is not exclusionary.

Last but not least, the third lie mentioned above was “you’re just deciding for folks whether or not they’re women.” Nope! We’re not. Nobody can decide who is a woman and who is not. You’re just born that way. Nature and biology determine whether you’re born male or female. Nobody can decide anything about it. People can’t assign a sex to a baby any more than they can assign fingers or toes to a baby. Women are identifying the difference between male and female, but we cannot possibly decide it from our desire or will—nobody can.

I want to particularly highlight the following phrase from Wanda Normous:


This is hate speech directed toward lesbians. Although Mr. Normous is very concerned that lesbians should not be allowed to represent a uterus on a sign because that is allegedly “hate speech” against him, he has no problem with calling lesbians “useless fucking terf garbage.” It’s very, very clear that Mr. Normous has serious misogyny issues. A misogynist and homophobic man who harasses and intimidates lesbians has absolutely no business attending a dyke march and he should be considered an unsafe person and banned from the event.

In contrast, I am a trans-critical writer who makes an effort not to use unnecessarily antagonistic language when talking about trans people. I never use the slur “tranny” and I even refrain from using the words “mutilate” and “delusional.” I believe in giving people basic courtesy and respect, in order to show that I am engaging honestly with issues and not just trolling. For a transwoman to show up on my blog and use this sort of disrespectful language when I have used no such disrespectful language toward him is very telling. Once again, the hatred and bigotry in this situation are coming from trans people and directed at lesbians; it’s a one-way street.

I did notice that Mr. Normous intentionally “misgendered” me by referring to me with male signifiers. This did not harm me in any way, because using incorrect grammar in a sentence does not cause people harm. I found it mildly amusing, but it really didn’t matter at all. However, I have to note that according to trans ideology, misgendering is “violence,” and so according to Mr. Normous’s own political position, he has committed “violence” toward me. Funny how the “violence” of misgendering only matters when directed toward transwomen; when directed at lesbians it’s not a problem.

The last point I’m going to cover for tonight is this:

“your narrative that women are only as good as their reproductive organs”

This is not at all the narrative that feminists present. It is a bald-faced lie to claim this. It is patriarchy that positions women as only good for reproduction and PIV sex. The entire feminist movement has been based on women’s knowledge that we are more than just wives and mothers and that we can do anything we want. Our work has been based on allowing us to control our reproductive capacity so that we are not reduced to our biological functions and can enter the workforce as men’s equals. To name the female reproductive anatomy does not reduce women to just their reproductive anatomy. Similarly, if I identify that I have ten fingers, that does not reduce me to just fingers, and if I identify that I have two eyes, that does not reduce me to nothing but eyes. This attempt at an argument is beyond pathetic.

Over and over I have witnessed transwomen behaving with masculine socialization (entitlement, dominance, and aggression), making ridiculously misogynist and homophobic statements, engaging in misogynist and homophobic behaviours, and telling bald-faced lies about feminists. I am absolutely not impressed and as long as they behave this way I will not be a political ally toward them. Although I would theoretically support some parts of trans activism, such as gender-neutral toilets and the right to wear the clothing one wants to wear, I cannot ally with people who are this hateful toward my demographic.

Over and over, transwomen demonstrate, with their own words and behaviour, that they do not resemble women in the slightest, and that they are particularly dangerous men. Feminists hardly have to call attention to the fact that transwomen are male; they do it themselves.

Feeling creeped out by the forced-birth crowd

Earlier this year I deliberately sought out some anti-gay articles to find out what homophobes are saying these days, and I discovered they are obsessed with breeding. I was surprised to find out that anybody still thinks humans should grow our population when we are facing a climate crisis, dwindling resources and overpopulation.

Recently a friend shared an article from the conservative blog The Federalist that said our population problem is actually too few kids rather than too many. I ended up clicking on a tag “fertility rates” to see what else there was and I found there were lots of articles under this topic. The Federalist regularly publishes articles saying we should be having more kids. (And by “we” they mean white Christians in rich countries.)

One of these writers claims that “Humanity is threatened by too few people in the near future.” Evidently conservatives think that 7.5 billion people on the planet is a threateningly low number. Reading through a few articles on their site, it’s clear to me that they don’t believe in global warming, don’t believe there is a serious environmental toll on the planet from overuse of resources, don’t believe that any more than 10% of people live in poverty, are against abortion, and think that science is a left-wing conspiracy.

Ironically, they make fun of scientists because they perceive them to be biased, while they ignore factual information and believe in nonsense. God, I hate the right wing.

In reality, humans are living on a finite planet and have an economic system that is based on endless “growth” through massive consumption of resources and production of waste. We are causing large numbers of species to go extinct and entire ecosystems to be destroyed. If we continue on our present course we will destroy ourselves too, because we are living animals and a part of the environment we are destroying.

The Federalist has two very similar articles that hate on Bill Nye the Science Guy because he talks about the problem of overpopulation and suggests that we limit the number of children we have. This is really good advice because having fewer children means that there might actually be a living planet left for those humans who are still around.

The right-wing writers on the Federalist think that even suggesting that too many humans on the planet can cause problems is rooted in an evil hatred toward humans and is comparable to eugenics. They bring up abortion frequently in these articles, and they seem to be imagining that the left wing is anti-human and wants us all dead. Actually the left-wing wants to protect the environment so that we can protect life.

It’s incredibly creepy when men who don’t believe in women’s rights insist that we should be having more kids. They will be using women’s bodies to create those kids. There are still many women and girls around the world who do not have the option to say no to sex and who are impregnated against their will, which is exactly what caused overpopulation in the first place. American right-wing men want this here too. They want to reverse the gains that the women’s liberation movement have made and they want women to have no say in reproductive decisions and men to have free reign to use women’s bodies for their sexual pleasure and to make babies for them as they see fit.

As a radical feminist, I think that women should be entirely in control over our reproductive decisions and we should not be forced to create an army of soldiers for men to use in their battles with other men over resources. We should choose to have the number of kids we can reasonably take care of with the resources we have. When women are given the option to decline having kids, and when we have birth control to use, we make responsible decisions. Women who are given options have fewer children than women who are subject to male control.

Right wing men believe that they have the right to overuse the planet’s resources to the point of depletion and they believe that human females are some of the natural resources for them to use. They do not believe in our humanity and they don’t believe that non-human animals matter either. It is the right wing who is anti-life.


Vancouver Women’s Library vandalized

Meghan Murphy tweeted these photos of the vandalism of the Vancouver Women’s Library today. Hey, radical queers, if you’re trying to prove that you’re an anti-feminist hate group, it’s working!




Queer fascists attempt to ban feminist books from a women’s library

Women in Vancouver have created a women’s library to promote writing by women authors and “continue the legacy of women-run bookstores.” The library is run by women volunteers. Despite the fact that they announce themselves as queer-positive right on their website, with a “queer space” sign and a notice that the library is for “all self-identified women and girls,” a group of “radical queers” have launched an attack against the library.

Guerrilla Feminist Collective reports the following intimidation tactics used at the library:

“Last night we had to push through physical intimidation and lots of verbal nonsense to enter the new Vancouver Women’s Library.

Anti-feminist protesters actually showed up for once! They were welcomed inside (snowing, cold, everyone was welcome), but asked to leave when they tried to tear down feminist posters in the space and continued their physical intimidation inside. Police had to be called for fear of destruction of the space and the safety of library patrons inside. The protesters held signs and shouted at people entering the space. They poured wine over the books. They smoked inside when asked not to. They pulled the fire alarm. Some of them tried to bar then pushed women entering the space. As far as we saw, men were left alone to come and go as they pleased.

Women were shamed and blamed for calling the police, for fearing for theirs and others’ safety. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. All battered women will be familiar with these tactics. When we pointed out how we were physically barred then pushed from entering the space, and how threatening that felt, protesters wanted to know how we’d gender the person, rather than discuss the ethics of violence at hand.

Despite clearly stated goals (creation of women’s space for women’s work and dialogue), inclusion (all women), transparency of funding (self & UBC women’s centre), hard work (unpaid), and initiative (frankly brilliant caring GOODNESS of heart, seeking to create A WOMEN’S LIBRARY) the organizers were demonized, targeted, lied about, and all but burnt at the stake.

Ridiculous demands were made, such as the stepping down of founding member Emily (for having volunteered at and supporting a shelter for women fleeing male violence), creation of a board of directors (must everything be Mc-incorporated?), and the removal of certain books (fascism 101).”

The group Gays Against Gentrification (GAG) released a list of demands for the library on Facebook. I’m not sure if the people who showed up at the library are the same people who wrote this list of demands, but they certainly are using similar intimidation tactics.

The group GAG uses the slurs “TERF” and “SWERF” to intimidate and silence women who speak out about the harms of gender and the sex trade. The function of these words is to shut down conversations about women’s oppression. They can be applied to absolutely anyone who disagrees with the queer/liberal party line. Even women with direct experience in the sex trade can be called “SWERF,” despite the fact that it makes no sense that a woman could be “excluding” herself from her own analysis of the harms of the sex industry that she experienced.

GAG erroneously accuses feminists of denying health care and jobs to trans women and of trying to control the bodies of “sex workers” and enacting violence upon them. It is difficult to believe that anyone could be so far removed from reality that they actually think that feminists are the ones harming women in the sex trade rather than the johns and pimps who are actually inflicting the violence. Those people who seek to make male violence invisible and blame women instead for what men do to us can only be called MRAs.

GAG made a list of demands that includes, among other things, that the library must elect a board of directors that GAG members approve of, remove any books from the library that GAG does not approve of, and fire one of the organizers of the library who is specified by name. It’s just astounding that this group feels so entitled to women’s labor that they feel they can dictate to women how to run their own library. This is a vile display of misogyny and anti-feminism.

Their wording gets so over-the-top at times it almost looks like a parody:

“TERFs and SWERFs are complicit in violence against sex workers and trans women and it is imperative that we do not let this violence go unnoticed. The same ideology and praxis of hate is present and replicated in right-wing/alt-right/neo-nazi organizing. TERFs and SWERFs organize for the same violent policies and work in partnership with right-wing hate groups to replicate settler-colonial white-supremacist constructions of cisheteropatrarchy that outright reject, erase, and deny IBPOC sovereignty, body sovereignty, and all peoples that do not fit under euro-centric nativism.”

It would seem that GAG believes that women who lend out books written by women are literal Nazis who are enacting white supremacy and patriarchy. It’s very clear that the goal of “radical queers” is to shut down feminism by harassing women and making feminist analysis of women’s oppression impossible to share. “Radical queers” are therefore obviously an anti-feminist hate group. The idea that feminists have the material power in society to inflict violence on large groups of people is completely laughable. There is not a single radical feminist in a position of power in government or the private sector, and there are very few left in the academy. In addition, physical violence is not a tactic that any feminist groups are advocating for. If recent history tells us anything about feminist organizing, we like to knit cute hats and even in crowds of thousands of women there is no violence reported at all.

GAG provided a list of the feminist books they believe should be banned from the women’s library. Here is the list:

-Admission Accomplished – Jill Johnston
-Against Sadomasochism – Robin R. Linden, Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E. Russell, Susan Leigh Star
-Amazon Odyssey: Collection of Writings – Ti-Grace Atkinson
-Buddhism after Patriarchy – Rita M. Gross
-The Female Man – Joana Russ
-Female Sexual Slavery – Kathleen Barry
-Feminism Unmodified – Catharine A. Mackinnon
-First Buddhist Women: Poems and Stories of Awakening Susan Murcott
-Gyn/Ecology – Mary Daly
-The Idea of Prostitution – Sheila Jeffreys
-The Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade – Sheila Jeffreys
-Intercourse – Andrea Dworkin
-The Lesbian Heresy – Sheila Jeffreys
-Nine Parts of Desire: The Hidden World of Islamic Women – Geraldine Brooks
-Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade – Janice Raymond
-Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography-Of Women Born – Adrienne Rich
-Pornography: Men Possessing Women – Andrea Dworkin
-Radical Acceptance – Tara Brach
-The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism – Janice Raymond
-Women As Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom – Janice Raymond
This is simply a list of writing by radical feminists who expose the harms of gender and the sex industry. I have read two books from this list: Female Sexual Slavery and Pornography: Men Possessing Women. These are excellent books that I highly recommend. The only people these books could possibly be considered “hateful” towards are the men who abuse women.
It’s really surreal to me that anti-feminists are cloaking themselves in the language of social justice and calling themselves “queer.” Feminism should be a necessary part of anyone’s social justice program, and queer used to mean homosexual but is now a set of extremely anti-feminist politics that is quite hostile toward lesbians. Strange world we’re living in.
I would suggest that my readers put at least one of these books in their 2017 reading list. These are obviously very powerful books that make anti-feminists boiling mad, so they must be good! And of course, if you are in a position to support the Vancouver Women’s Library in any way, please do. Solidarity, sisters!

What sex bots tell us about male sexuality

Recently the Misogynist Raging Assholes are having a tantrum over the alleged feminist conspiracy to ban their sex robots. According to MRAs, feminists want to ban the sex bots because when women have to compete with robots for male attention, the robots will win, since feminists are so fat, ugly, and unwilling to put out, and since the availability of sex bots will drive the price of sex way down. The MRAs believe that all interactions between men and women consist of transactions where men get sex and women get stuff in return. Therefore, according to their theory, women do things to keep the price of sex high so that we can get a lot of stuff from men who want sex from us.

It’s a very sad little world that MRAs live in. They have no idea that men and women actually form relationships and friendships with each other all the time, and that we get joy and pleasure from being together, and interacting pleasantly, the way humans do when they’re not hateful, small-minded morons. MRAs basically think that all men hate women as much as they do, and that heterosexual sex consists of men fucking someone they hate, just for the orgasm, and women allowing their bodies to be used in order to gain something in return.

Actual sex, you know, the kind that isn’t rape, is a mutually pleasurable experience where all parties involved are there because they enjoy doing what they’re doing and wish to experience sexual pleasure together. Sex-as-a-transaction is a product of capitalist patriarchy where men are people and women are objects, and everything in life is commodified and sold in the marketplace. Since women do not have fully human status, we are fair game for selling in the marketplace and so men sell us and buy us.

Sex-as-a-transaction is based on a male-centric and penis-centric idea of what sex is. To the MRA, sex is when a person (man) thrusts his penis inside of something until he ejaculates. In this model of sex, it really doesn’t matter what the receptacle is. They prefer to use human women as receptacles because the added dimension of dominance over women’s bodies gives them an extra high as they ejaculate. However, men will also use children, animals, and inanimate objects as receptacles because when your definition of sex is simply “thrusting my penis into a thing” then the thing can truly be anything. Notice that in this model of sex, there is no distinction to be made between sex and rape. Misogynist Raging Assholes do not distinguish between the two because the receptacle he uses does not matter to him and whether the receptacle agrees to be a receptacle or not does not matter. The only thing that matters to him is that he gets to fuck something or someone who is subordinate to him.

So that brings us to sex robots. It is perfectly logical that a Misogynist Raging Asshole would want to fuck an inanimate object shaped like a human female. That’s because they already think of human females as objects so it’s not a stretch to fuck an actual object. Since they are not aware that sex is an intrinsically rewarding positive interaction between two human subjects, they are not aware of any difference between fucking a robot and fucking an actual human being. Thrusting their penis into an inanimate object meets their definition of sex. 

The reason that the robots are shaped like human women, instead of being shaped like any other thing, is because of the cultural perception that women and sex are the same thing. Sex isn’t an activity that MRAs experience with another person, sex is something women are. We are the chosen receptacle for their bodily fluids. Simply seeing women anywhere, on the street, in the workplace, in the store, wherever, is a sexual experience for men. They look at a woman and they see sex. The sight of our bodies is an indication that orgasm is coming. The constant use of pornography among Misogynist Raging Assholes ensures they continue to think this way. If they do not wish to see themselves as rapists they bargain with the woman before fucking her. They offer her money, food, marriage, etc to get her to agree to being his receptacle. However, the actual activity—using a woman as a receptacle—does not change whether the woman has agreed to it or not. It is quite indistinguishable from rape. Sex that does not perfectly resemble rape is something that MRAs have never even thought about. It has not occurred to him that sex might be something that women want to do just for the sake of it, something we might find pleasurable. They cannot see us as sexual subjects with our own desires to be fulfilled. If at any point they do come across a woman who desires sex on her own terms, they will label her a slut and deem her unfuckable. That’s because MRAs wish for their receptacles to be exactly like sex bots, and not like people. We are just there for him, we cannot have a self of our own.

I’ve met plenty of women who have found decent husbands who respect them as people and have mature adult relationships. I wouldn’t marry a man myself but I know that there are men who do understand what sex and relationships with woman are and who can do them just fine. But the men who think that sex bots are better than human women are men who cannot see women as human beings and who cannot distinguish between sex and rape. I say, if these men would prefer a robot over a human being, let them have their robots. I wouldn’t wish any actual women to have the misfortune of having to interact with them.

If I came out against sex bots, it would only be from an anti-capitalist perspective. Sex robots are an unnecessary luxury item for the rich, and I am against all unnecessary luxury items for the rich on the basis that no one should have luxuries while other people go without the basics of life. If men have so much money that they can afford to buy a robot to ejaculate in when all they truly need is a sock, then they shouldn’t have that much money. We should share our resources equally and the only way some people can be rich is if other people are poor. However, I do not oppose the use of sex bots on the basis of them creating competition for women and driving the price of sex down. That is complete and utter nonsense. Women are not actually competing for the attention of rapists and wannabe rapists. We actually want to stay the fuck away from them and we are actively working to create a culture where this sort of pro-rape attitude no longer exists. Sex is not actually a commodity. Men have been trying to commodify sex for a long, long, time but all they’ve done is commodify rape. Mutual, consensual sex has no price tag.