The Social/Cultural Ramifications of one Sex losing a significant portion of their power/purpose?
- Thread starter Paragon Fury
- Start date
I think sex robots will go the way sex toys have. I mean, I'm a dude with a penis. My options for sex toys are A) something to wrap around my peener, B) stuff to put in my butt, and C) vibrating versions of A or B. I mean, some of these things are nice, I guess, but women have way-hey-hey more options for stuff like that. And if they could get a man-bot that does the nice guy thing[footnote]Finishes last, heyoo[/footnote] us dudes better start brushing up on our personalities and hobbies.
Which is going to be tough, because if a Turing compatible robot shows up who can lift a 100 lbs of stuff occasionally and only costs as much as a mid-sized sedan? I'm out of a freaking job, that's for sure. Well, I'm in Montana, so it could take an extra decade, but whatever, work-bot pays for itself in 2-3 years, depending on upkeep and reliability. My love life is the least of my problems.
Which is going to be tough, because if a Turing compatible robot shows up who can lift a 100 lbs of stuff occasionally and only costs as much as a mid-sized sedan? I'm out of a freaking job, that's for sure. Well, I'm in Montana, so it could take an extra decade, but whatever, work-bot pays for itself in 2-3 years, depending on upkeep and reliability. My love life is the least of my problems.
Gene splicing and artificial insemination were always going to be easier than artificial wombs, and deep down everybody knew it.undeadsuitor said:
This was brought up earlier in the thread. As AltnameJag points out artificial wombs are much harder (but tests are being conducted) to make and sustain which puts men at a real disadvantage. But women are not likely to ditch men and go full IVF with their lesbian lovers for three major reasons:undeadsuitor said:
1. The ethical aspect. IVF for single mothers is already really hard to get and is outright outlawed in several countries. You have to take the childs well being into account as well as the social ramifications of allowing IVF of egg to egg, this will be a big hurdle to get past.
2. The medical aspect. A woman getting IVF with the genetic material from another woman will only ever produce a daughter, barring genetic engineering to create a Y chromosome. This is a problem in itself, but a larger problem is that we just don't know what happens in a few generations time if we remove the Y chromosome from play completely. A bunch of hereditary diseases might crop up that are related to lacking genes from the father.
3. The cost aspect. The biggest hurdle for the individual, IVF is expensive as fuck today. Imagine the cost for the individual if you not only want IVF, but want IVF with gene modifications to allow for another woman's egg to suppleant the sperm. It works in a lab with research grants, but unless you are the 1% or want to give up your life savings, it won't be a viable option for a long time (and we might question whether genetic modification will ever be cheap enough).
On a side note, lets not forget that women tend to enjoy the concepts of dating, relationships and fucking as much as men do. All of the above pre-supposes that women, if given the chance, would flip the bird to men and just stop being in relationships with them. As much as I can see the appeal of that and can vouch for the lesbian lifestyle, most women still wants a man in their life. As long as that's true and the idea of having a baby together as a sign of a strong relationship and lifelong bond exists, women are unlikely to ditch men all together. Incidentally I believe the same is true in reverse, while r/redpill might be all about sexbots and artificial wombs, I doubt most men would be into the idea of sexbots if they could choose between that and a real woman they cared about.
You have it all wrong. Paragon is the prime example. For everybody else's sake he is here to give us perspective. He must not change.Phasmal said:
Well, we're in a fantasy thread by a guy who lacks that choice or at least any scenario he finds meaningful to pursue. As I said earlier in the thread, fantasy always wins over the hassle. I hope it won't become a bigger thing than it already is (and I hope that for most people it's just a phase of which they'll grow up).Gethsemani said:
Geez, this topic pushes my thoughts into darkness every single time. Anyway, for something lighthearted I once came up with an idea for a speculative fiction story set in the near future in which sexbots were heavily pushed into sex ed to combat teen anxiety. While that program was a success, the father of the popularization idea hears about hackers making these bots into "real" girl- and boyfriends and starts to wonder if the whole thing should've been kept in the fringes.
You mean, all of the good and none of the bad? You do the math.sanquin said:
Though, that obviously goes both ways.
Rather than go out and have relationships with real people, we'd spend all our time on machines that provided free porn, cultivating fake relationships on social media, and endlessly ranting in bubbles about how awful the other sex was and supporting each others' worst stereotypes to suggest that our dispensing with "them" was the right choice.
Probably to the point that we'd make the already diminishing rates of human fertility irrelevant.
...Naw, that's too far fetched, right?
Probably to the point that we'd make the already diminishing rates of human fertility irrelevant.
...Naw, that's too far fetched, right?
Separating from the scifi cause, it does offer an interesting topic. What happens in society when a defined role or purpose of one sex is rendered obsolete? Arguably you can say that technological advancement has done something close to the male sex. No longer the hunters, protectors, and no longer polygamous, the evolutionary roles that sex typically occupied has been stripped down considerably. While modern males still can fill roles of breadwinner and military protector, it is less defining, so the loss of it has occurred. But while it has changed society there, I don't think it has done so for the better or worse per say. Just changed.
On the female side of things, that has happened as well. More currently (relatively speaking), the evolutionary roles of the sex as child-bearers, child-rearers, and closer to present, homemakers, have changed as well. Children are more often raised by the society in increasing amount of time (schooling systems, etc) so that role has slipped and been less common. Child bearing is still pretty tied near-exclusively to women so less likely that to change while that important biological function is limited to them. As for homemaking, well, that itself seems a change from our evolutionary ancestors tied along with the development of agriculture and ability to establish permanent residences. It changing from that again as the the technology changes is not unexpected. Neither good or bad, it is simply change.
While trends on sex roles and purpose do shift, I think there is another wrinkle of note. We have a choice. Unlike humanity's past where evolutionary pressures drove those roles and purposes, or more recent past where the ramifications of those evolutionary pressures still held roles in a more rigid way, modern mankind is allowed more freedom to choose what it wants in how it lives and what role it fills, not according to sex, but rather to society itself. Stay at home dads are a flip of the recent history sex role of child-rearer and home maker, but it existing doesn't force anyone else to change their sex's role.
I think the conclusion I come to on this is that the roles existed for a purpose themselves, the propagation of the species in the environments they existed. The environments have changed in response to mankind's growing technology and with it the rigid nature of those sex purposes have lessened. You no longer need to be strong to hunt. You no longer need to hunt to have food. You no longer need to gather on an individual basis. Mothers no longer need to be constantly on watch for predators. Homes no longer take as much time and effort to manage. Because of that, roles being aligned to one sex based on biological aspects (males more muscular on average, women more evolutionary valuable because child bearing) are less damning if done, and can even have advantages. Society no longer suffers when the sex roles aren't held so the roles required for the society to function can be filled by either sex more and more.
Humans are the dominant species because we can adapt as a species. Being able to adjust roles in a society in response to our own changes on the environmental conditions is a pretty good adaption. And it also tells that if it stops working, for whatever reason, it could adapt back or in an entirely separate direction.
On the female side of things, that has happened as well. More currently (relatively speaking), the evolutionary roles of the sex as child-bearers, child-rearers, and closer to present, homemakers, have changed as well. Children are more often raised by the society in increasing amount of time (schooling systems, etc) so that role has slipped and been less common. Child bearing is still pretty tied near-exclusively to women so less likely that to change while that important biological function is limited to them. As for homemaking, well, that itself seems a change from our evolutionary ancestors tied along with the development of agriculture and ability to establish permanent residences. It changing from that again as the the technology changes is not unexpected. Neither good or bad, it is simply change.
While trends on sex roles and purpose do shift, I think there is another wrinkle of note. We have a choice. Unlike humanity's past where evolutionary pressures drove those roles and purposes, or more recent past where the ramifications of those evolutionary pressures still held roles in a more rigid way, modern mankind is allowed more freedom to choose what it wants in how it lives and what role it fills, not according to sex, but rather to society itself. Stay at home dads are a flip of the recent history sex role of child-rearer and home maker, but it existing doesn't force anyone else to change their sex's role.
I think the conclusion I come to on this is that the roles existed for a purpose themselves, the propagation of the species in the environments they existed. The environments have changed in response to mankind's growing technology and with it the rigid nature of those sex purposes have lessened. You no longer need to be strong to hunt. You no longer need to hunt to have food. You no longer need to gather on an individual basis. Mothers no longer need to be constantly on watch for predators. Homes no longer take as much time and effort to manage. Because of that, roles being aligned to one sex based on biological aspects (males more muscular on average, women more evolutionary valuable because child bearing) are less damning if done, and can even have advantages. Society no longer suffers when the sex roles aren't held so the roles required for the society to function can be filled by either sex more and more.
Humans are the dominant species because we can adapt as a species. Being able to adjust roles in a society in response to our own changes on the environmental conditions is a pretty good adaption. And it also tells that if it stops working, for whatever reason, it could adapt back or in an entirely separate direction.
Why not make both sexes obsolete by investing in artificial wombs and artificially creating the perfect egg and sperm cells depending on what you want at the output, which may or may not be a clone army.
