I filed Sexual Harassment against a Woman
ImJustOne
managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
employee.
For brevity, I'll keep the details to a minimum. Basically, not only was
she caressing me and making sexual advances without my consent but I did not
at any time give her any indication that I was interested in her. At first
I figured she was merely joking with me, since the first incident occurred
in front of some other people in a somewhat light-hearted atmosphere. But
she then sought me out alone and continued this behavior.
I was completely frustrated with the situation. As a person who suffers
from constant anxiety and shyness, it was difficult for me to come right out
and tell her I did not like what she was doing in a clear, assertive manner.
As a person who also suffers from low self-esteem, part of me "reasoned"
that it would be best to just ignore her and continue to be the butt of her
jokes/advances.
Every time she would pass by or be in the same area I would become very
agitated, almost as if expecting another incident to occur between us.
One night she passed by me and puckered her lips and blew me a loud kiss in
front of some other coworkers, then said something like "hey
beautiful/sexy." For a while she had been ignoring me and I figured the
situation had gone away but after this it became clear that if I didn't take
action I would continue to suffer under her power. She clearly had control
over me- she could insult me and toy with me however she pleased, maybe
because she figured as a woman she could get away with it.
I went to do some work for a few minutes, still distressed about the
situation. I mentally slapped myself a few times across the face and
finally worked up the nerve to talk to management. The complaint has been
filed and management has met with her about the incident also, but it is
still in progress, so to speak, but I'll update you when something comes up.
BTW, she passed by me the other day, and made eye contact. Not certain what
to make of the situation, I returned her look with my chin up.
Her: "Hey, how are you doing today?"
Me (in a clear, confident, loud voice): "Very good, thanks for asking."
That's what I wanted to see- someone treating me with some respect. The
respect that we all deserve, shybie or not. Even though I wasn't able to
stand up to her directly, I think that by contacting someone in authority
and thereby bringing this behavior to a stop I managed to stand up for
myself and demand respect and fair treatment.
Moral of the story:
You don't have to put up with someone's bullshit. Make a stand.
Ms Pnoopie Pnats
the.color.o...@tuned.to.a.dead.channel.com says...
I was on this other board where a woman was complaining this short fat
guy kept coming by her office talking to her and asking her out to
lunch. The other harpies said to file harassment charges against him. I
commented, if he was good looking would you be so offended.
Dead silence. I killed that thread! LOL!
kitznegari thinks it has wings
- k i t z -
the only doors that are closed to me are the ones i don't open.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kitznegari
ImJustOne
"Ms Pnoopie Pnats" <myblowupr...@blowuppp.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b3f588c5...@news.alt.net...
> Good for you for sticking up for yourself.
>
> I was on this other board where a woman was complaining this short fat
> guy kept coming by her office talking to her and asking her out to
> lunch. The other harpies said to file harassment charges against him. I
> commented, if he was good looking would you be so offended.
I think if you are attracted to the other person it completely changes the
picture. However, I don't think sexual harassment claims should be based
merely on "he's ugly, he hit on me, call a lawyer!" situations. If the guy
is a total stalker then yeah it should be discussed with management.
F.r.a.n-k.
ImJustOne <the.color.o...@tuned.to.a.dead.channel.com> wrote :
> [...]
> Moral of the story:
> You don't have to put up with someone's bullshit. Make a stand.
Bravo!
--
Oh, yes, I'm the great pretender
Pretending I'm doing well
My need is such, I pretend too much
I'm lonely but no one can tell
Buck Ram, The Platters...
Lash Rambo
news:r3kbd0pgu7u0ntqah...@4ax.com:
> Just a little advice:
>
> For now, while the sexual harassment compliant is going through, I
> suggest that you not talk to her or in any way aknowledge her presence
> other. I would even go as far as avoiding passsing her by, for now if
> possible.
>
> Don't let her sudden "niceness" fool you.
>
> She could be trying to:
>
> 1. Get you to drop the charges
>
> 2. Try to set YOU up for a sexual harassment charge.
>
> Be VERY careful right now, is my advice, or she could come back and
> make things worse.
>
> BTW, GREAT JOB is filing a harassment charge against her. !!!
>
> She was asking for it.
I agree with this post. People do not lose power gladly, leopards can't
change their spots, and all that. Watch your back, ESPECIALLY if she has
a lot of friends and you don't. Retribution may not come directly from
her.
PC
> I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted the
> managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
> employee.
Yeah, good job, dude. You could have gotten laid, but you had to file
a complaint against her, instead. Is she ugly or something? Also,
did you let her know you were uncomfortable with her hitting on you
before you filed a complaint?
merri
> "ImJustOne" <the.color.o...@tuned.to.a.dead.channel.com> wrote in message news:<FafBc.15277$Yb1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
>> I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted the
>> managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
>> employee.
>
> Yeah, good job, dude. You could have gotten laid, but you had to file
> a complaint against her, instead. Is she ugly or something?
Apparently, he didn't find her attractive.
> Also,
> did you let her know you were uncomfortable with her hitting on you
> before you filed a complaint?
I hope he did.
DudeNEPhx1971
There is this ugly 55 or so big boss at work. He once asked this gal at work,
here take this, what can you do for $10. :)
I was once in a meeting with this old fart, he used lot of F words and with a
serious face said..this damn issue is jumping back and forth like a French
whore.
The Babaloughesian
"Dave Richards" <dave...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fkicd05bbn84drerf...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 02:37:51 +0400, merri <merri...@softhome.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 20 Jun 2004 13:23:43 -0700, PC wrote:
> >
> >> "ImJustOne" <the.color.o...@tuned.to.a.dead.channel.com> wrote
in message news:<FafBc.15277$Yb1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> >>> I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted the
> >>> managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
> >>> employee.
> >>
> >> Yeah, good job, dude. You could have gotten laid, but you had to file
> >> a complaint against her, instead. Is she ugly or something?
> >
> >Apparently, he didn't find her attractive.
>
>
> >> Also,
> >> did you let her know you were uncomfortable with her hitting on you
> >> before you filed a complaint?
> >
> >I hope he did.
>
I'd think it would give his complaints more weight, wouldn't it? If he
objected and she persisted, that should hurt her ability to claim that it
was all just a misunderstanding.
ImJustOne
"PC" <proble...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:11cdc7cd.04062...@posting.google.com...
> "ImJustOne" <the.color.o...@tuned.to.a.dead.channel.com> wrote in
message news:<FafBc.15277$Yb1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> > I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted the
> > managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
> > employee.
>
> Yeah, good job, dude. You could have gotten laid, but you had to file
> a complaint against her, instead. Is she ugly or something?
Her looks are irrelevant in this matter. She totally invaded my personal
space and is trying to control me for what purpose, I do not know. I'm very
tentative about having women fling themselves on me, partly because of the
sad truth that I do not belong to the Brad Pitt class of men that attract
this sort of attention. It was never about attraction, it was about
humiliation and superiority.
Also,
> did you let her know you were uncomfortable with her hitting on you
> before you filed a complaint?
Yes, I told her I wasn't interested and that I didn't like her groping me.
Plus, I have not pursued her or returned her advances, so she should have
gotten the hint.
Ms Pnoopie Pnats
the.color.o...@tuned.to.a.dead.channel.com says...
Sklenge
This happened to a really nice chap I used to know at work, some woman got
obsessed with him... this was the start of all his woes. Although she was
moved to a different site his world had already started to collapse, I think
due to the slow and incapable handling by the senior management who showed
themselves to be totally inept and non supportive. He left there in the end
and she's still there and will probably be moved back in her old position.
Well anyway - he's much better off not working for those morons. All
workplace bullying should be dealt with quickly and effectively - don't let
personnel/management play for time on this - keep in contact with them to
know how your case is going or they'll try to sweep it under the carpet and
hope it goes away. If you can, join your union.
ImJustOne
> Can I cyber grope you?
o_O
Mad Fly Thug
William P
in news:FafBc.15277$Yb1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
> I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted the
> managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
> employee.
>
> For brevity, I'll keep the details to a minimum. Basically, not only
> was she caressing me and making sexual advances without my consent but
> I did not at any time give her any indication that I was interested in
> her. At first I figured she was merely joking with me, since the
> first incident occurred in front of some other people in a somewhat
> light-hearted atmosphere. But she then sought me out alone and
> continued this behavior.
>
> I was completely frustrated with the situation. As a person who
> suffers from constant anxiety and shyness, it was difficult for me to
> come right out and tell her I did not like what she was doing in a
> clear, assertive manner. As a person who also suffers from low
> self-esteem, part of me "reasoned" that it would be best to just
> ignore her and continue to be the butt of her jokes/advances.
I think it would be a good life skill to learn how to tell people who are
bothering you to cut that shit out. If you want respect, that's how you
get it in the long run.
Virgo Cluster
news:<MPG.1b4073014...@news.alt.net>...
** ImJustOne **
>> Yes, I told her I wasn't interested and that I didn't
>> like her groping me. Plus, I have not pursued her or
>> returned her advances, so she should have gotten the hint.
** Ms Pnoopie Pnats **
> Can I cyber grope you?
I do more than this to you every time I plug my computer cord
into the wall!
Virgo Cluster
"[12 Misanthropes] (#2) "If they were drowning to death,
I'd put a hose in their mouth."
-- Ray Kroc, former Chief Executive Officer of
McDonald's, on his competitors."
<< Karl Shaw, "The Mammoth Book of Tasteless
Lists", Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1998, p. 455 >>
Virgo Cluster
news:<MPG.1b4073014...@news.alt.net>...
** ImJustOne **
>> Yes, I told her I wasn't interested and that I didn't
>> like her groping me. Plus, I have not pursued her or
>> returned her advances, so she should have gotten the hint.
** Ms Pnoopie Pnats **
> Can I cyber grope you?
I do more than this to you every time I plug my computer cord
Ms Pnoopie Pnats
gamma...@yahoo.com says...
> Ms Pnoopie Pnats <myblowupr...@blowuppp.com> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.1b4073014...@news.alt.net>...
>
> ** ImJustOne **
> >> Yes, I told her I wasn't interested and that I didn't
> >> like her groping me. Plus, I have not pursued her or
> >> returned her advances, so she should have gotten the hint.
>
> ** Ms Pnoopie Pnats **
> > Can I cyber grope you?
>
> I do more than this to you every time I plug my computer cord
> into the wall!
How many times do you plug it into the wall?
Real Ketchup
> I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted
> the managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a
> female employee.
Rat.
[...]
> Moral of the story:
> You don't have to put up with someone's bullshit. Make a stand.
Make your own stand.
PC
As long as you *specifically* pointed out that you didn't like how she
was acting, it's all cool, then. Just because you don't respond to
her flirting doesn't mean she should know you're not interested, she
might think you're just shy (imagine that).
acunamatata
You're conceited.
Darkfalz
message news:FafBc.15277$Yb1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Well done. Shame no girl has ever sexually harassed me, but they have
verbally abused me. Not in the workplace sadly, so I can't file a complaint
or anything.
Yep making a stand is great. There are way too many things that women will
cry foul about if men do but they are completely oblivious when they do it
themselves.
Gray Loser
GoddessBaybee
>message news:FafBc.15277$Yb1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted the
>> managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
>> employee.
>>
>> For brevity, I'll keep the details to a minimum. Basically, not only was
>> she caressing me and making sexual advances without my consent but I did
>> not
>> at any time give her any indication that I was interested in her.
>> At first
>> I figured she was merely joking with me, since the first incident occurred
>> in front of some other people in a somewhat light-hearted atmosphere. But
>> she then sought me out alone and continued this behavior.
>>
>> I was completely frustrated with the situation. As a person who suffers
>> from constant anxiety and shyness, it was difficult for me to come right
>> out
>> and tell her I did not like what she was doing in a clear, assertive
>> manner.
If you didn't make it clear that her advances were unwanted, then technically it
aint sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is when someone continues with
unwanted sexual advances after it's been made clear that this behavior is
unwelcome.
Well, that's what sexual harassment was originally aboot.
Unfortunately, sexual harassment complaint policies have been misused by people
who won't communicate their disinterest openly,
and this is really a shame.
People really aint mindreaders.
If you don't make it clear that you want someone to back off, they might not
have the slightest clue that their behavior is making you so uncomfortable.
>> As a person who also suffers from low self-esteem, part of me "reasoned"
>> that it would be best to just ignore her and continue to be the butt of
>> her jokes/advances.
>>
>> Every time she would pass by or be in the same area I would become very
>> agitated, almost as if expecting another incident to occur between us.
>>
>> One night she passed by me and puckered her lips and blew me a loud kiss
>> in front of some other coworkers, then said something like "hey
>> beautiful/sexy."
Guys do this sorta stuff to me all the time, and it almost never bothers me.
In the rare instances when it does, I find that a firm statement such as "cut it
out" said in a non-joking manner usually does the trick.
>> For a while she had been ignoring me and I figured the
>> situation had gone away but after this it became clear that if I didn't
>> take action I would continue to suffer under her power.
huh?
What power does she have over you?
When a guy I aint interested in blows me a kiss,
I don't feel that he has any "power" over me.
I really dont get ya here.
>> She clearly had control
>> over me- she could insult
>> me and toy with me however she pleased, maybe
>> because she figured as a woman she could get away with it.
>>
>> I went to do some work for a few minutes, still distressed about the
>> situation. I mentally slapped myself a few times across the face and
>> finally worked up the nerve to talk to management. The complaint has been
>> filed and management has met with her about the incident also, but it is
>> still in progress, so to speak, but I'll update you when something comes
>> up.
>>
>> BTW, she passed by me the other day, and made eye contact.
>> Not certain what
>> to make of the situation, I returned her look with my chin up.
>>
>> Her: "Hey, how are you doing today?"
>> Me (in a clear, confident, loud voice): "Very good, thanks for asking."
>>
>> That's what I wanted to see- someone treating me with some respect.
If she's handling it well after the ya prematurely dragged supervisors into
whole thing, then my guess is she prolly would have handled it well if you'd
simply asked her to cut it out. I say prematurely dragged supervisors into the
whole thing, cuz you never even told her that her sexual advances were
unwelcome.
When men and women (and currently I think it's mostly women) misuse sexual
harassment laws, they make it difficult for people to flirt, interact and get to
know each other in a natural setting, such as the workplace. I think it's a
shame that so many people will file a complaint without even telling the person
in question that their behavior makes 'em uncomfortable.
Baybee
William P
> Not in American (nor Euro or Oz I wager) workplaces.
>
> Confrinting a women who is disrupting your life directly like that in
> a work environment could have HER claiming that she was harrassed
> instead.
>
> I-J-O did exactly the right thing by filing a complaint, IMO.
I maintain that this isn't the way to get respect from anyone though.
Virgo Cluster
** ImJustOne **
>>>> Yes, I told her I wasn't interested and that I didn't
>>>> like her groping me. Plus, I have not pursued her or
>>>> returned her advances, so she should have gotten the hint.
** Ms Pnoopie Pnats **
>>> Can I cyber grope you?
** Virgo Cluster **
>> I do more than this to you every time I plug my computer
>> cord into the wall!
** Ms Pnoopie Pnats **
> How many times do you plug it into the wall?
Almost everyday for my computer at home. I keep it unplugged
when I'm not using it to minimize the possibility of an
electrical surge from lightening or something else messing
up over 10,000 hours of work (a conservative estimate based
on ten years of 3 hr/day). Virtually everyday I'm working on
one or more LaTex files (tests/quizzes/handouts for classes
I teach and various manuscripts I'm working on) when I'm in
my office. I'll save the modified files on a disc to take
home with me in order to up-date the versions of those files
stored on my home computer. This requires me to plug my home
computer's cord into the wall (the cord of the surge
protector, to be more accurate) and turn the computer on.
The transfer goes the other way if I do some work at home.
This happened today, in fact, since I worked a couple of
hours this morning on something at home. But what I did
today didn't involve any additional plugging-in of computers
because I never un-plug my office computer and because the
work I did this morning took place right after I up-dated
my home files with what I did in my office yesterday.
In my next post I'll describe in excruciating detail why
I use both medium-point ink pens and fine-point pens,
and which tasks I regulate to each ...
Virgo Cluster
"[12 Misanthropes] (#6) "Happiness is nothing more than good
health and a bad memory."
-- Albert Schweitzer"
Sklenge
> In my next post I'll describe in excruciating detail why
> I use both medium-point ink pens and fine-point pens,
> and which tasks I regulate to each ...
>
> Virgo Cluster
>
I know I'll be riveted to the chair... it may be the only way to stop me
from leaving. Actually I can see where different weights of ink flow would
be very useful for notation. I use different colours and italic/roman styles
myself, but your technique may add a further dimension to my already robust
proof mark up regime. Can you post up images to show the effects of said
instruments?
The Danimal
> >"ImJustOne" <the.color.o...@tuned.to.a.dead.channel.com> wrote in
> >message news:FafBc.15277$Yb1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> >>
> >> I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted the
> >> managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
> >> employee.
> >>
> >> For brevity, I'll keep the details to a minimum. Basically, not only was
> >> she caressing me and making sexual advances without my consent but I did
> >> not
> >> at any time give her any indication that I was interested in her.
> >> At first
> >> I figured she was merely joking with me, since the first incident occurred
> >> in front of some other people in a somewhat light-hearted atmosphere. But
> >> she then sought me out alone and continued this behavior.
> >>
> >> I was completely frustrated with the situation. As a person who suffers
> >> from constant anxiety and shyness, it was difficult for me to come right
> >> out
> >> and tell her I did not like what she was doing in a clear, assertive
> >> manner.
>
> If you didn't make it clear that her advances were unwanted, then technically it
> aint sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is when someone continues with
> unwanted sexual advances after it's been made clear that this behavior is
> unwelcome.
Suppose a woman does not speak English. Suppose she tells
me in some language I don't understand that she finds me
sexually repulsive. Suppose she does so while smiling politely
in a way that looks to me like a come-hither, because in her
country that's what women do when they reject men. I have no
idea what she said, so should I assume all signals are go?
Not everyone has the *CAPACITY* to "make it clear" that
someone else's "advances" are "unwanted."
If a woman drinks too much and passes out, she can longer
make it clear that anyone's advances are unwanted. Does that
make her fair game for the guy she was just making out with?
Maybe you are replying to a man who has some mental defect
that renders him incapable of asserting his nonconsent.
What if there is some retarded woman in an institution
who doesn't understand the game rules? Should the male
orderlies use her as their sex slave?
> Well, that's what sexual harassment was originally aboot.
> Unfortunately, sexual harassment complaint policies have been
> misused by people who won't communicate their disinterest
> openly, and this is really a shame.
I don't think that's nearly as unfortunate as the fact that
sexual harassment law discriminates against unattractive men.
Trial by jury discriminates against the ugly to some degree---
psychologists have constructed experiments showing that
physically unattractive defendents are more likely to be
convicted than handsome/beautiful ones---but sexual
harassment law directly penalizes people for being sexually
unattractive, by giving them far more opportunities to violate
the law than people with high sexual market value have.
Not only opportunity, but motive. It's like punishing people
for stealing bread. Hungry people are more likely to violate
that law than well-fed people.
Nobody said life was fair, of course.
> People really aint mindreaders.
When you see some land you would like to hike on, do you
start hiking until someone tells you to leave, or do you
try to find the owner and ask for permission first?
> If you don't make it clear that you want someone to back off, they might not
> have the slightest clue that their behavior is making you so uncomfortable.
That's also true if someone sees a bicycle leaning against
a wall somewhere, and hops on it to take a ride without
asking the owner for permission first. Unless the owner
posted a sign, s/he did not make it clear the bike is not
for others to use.
Generally we think of other people's bodies as belonging to
them. One does not unilaterally appropriate other people's
stuff without specifically asking for some kind of permission
first.
> >> As a person who also suffers from low self-esteem, part of me "reasoned"
> >> that it would be best to just ignore her and continue to be the butt of
> >> her jokes/advances.
> >>
> >> Every time she would pass by or be in the same area I would become very
> >> agitated, almost as if expecting another incident to occur between us.
Is she fat?
> >> One night she passed by me and puckered her lips and blew me a loud kiss
> >> in front of some other coworkers, then said something like "hey
> >> beautiful/sexy."
>
> Guys do this sorta stuff to me all the time,
Do they pronounce the slash character?
> and it almost never bothers me.
> In the rare instances when it does, I find that a firm statement such as "cut it
> out" said in a non-joking manner usually does the trick.
That is one reason why (technically adequate) sexbots
will be more popular than women someday.
> >> For a while she had been ignoring me and I figured the
> >> situation had gone away but after this it became clear that if I didn't
> >> take action I would continue to suffer under her power.
>
> huh?
> What power does she have over you?
The power to change his emotional state in ways he finds
unpleasant.
It's like shouting a racial slur at someone. Different people
will find it bothersome to different degrees. Some racial
slurs would not make any sense directed at me, so I probably
would not react as viscerally and automatically as a member
of the targeted victim group.
> When a guy I aint interested in blows me a kiss,
> I don't feel that he has any "power" over me.
I don't understand why you are trying to process someone
else's emotions in terms of your own.
> I really dont get ya here.
I don't really get why those Muslim dudes are chopping
people's heads off. I can list some possible reasons,
but I can't relate to the actual emotions of the guy
who uses the knife.
Different people have some different emotions.
> >> She clearly had control
> >> over me- she could insult
> >> me and toy with me however she pleased, maybe
> >> because she figured as a woman she could get away with it.
In general she can.
> >> I went to do some work for a few minutes, still distressed about the
> >> situation. I mentally slapped myself a few times across the face and
> >> finally worked up the nerve to talk to management. The complaint has been
> >> filed and management has met with her about the incident also, but it is
> >> still in progress, so to speak, but I'll update you when something comes
> >> up.
> >>
> >> BTW, she passed by me the other day, and made eye contact.
> >> Not certain what
> >> to make of the situation, I returned her look with my chin up.
> >>
> >> Her: "Hey, how are you doing today?"
> >> Me (in a clear, confident, loud voice): "Very good, thanks for asking."
> >>
> >> That's what I wanted to see- someone treating me with some respect.
>
> If she's handling it well after the ya prematurely dragged supervisors into
> whole thing, then my guess is she prolly would have handled it well if you'd
> simply asked her to cut it out. I say prematurely dragged supervisors into the
> whole thing, cuz you never even told her that her sexual advances were
> unwelcome.
Either way, the burden of proof is always on the man.
> When men and women (and currently I think it's mostly women) misuse sexual
> harassment laws, they make it difficult for people to flirt, interact and get to
> know each other in a natural setting, such as the workplace.
I guess we'll just have to live with an increase in
worker productivity.
Nothing like a heavy dose of FUD to get the workers back
to their jobs.
> I think it's a
> shame that so many people will file a complaint without even telling the person
> in question that their behavior makes 'em uncomfortable.
How is this a shame? The aggressor can easily ask "the person in
question" whether his/her advances are welcome.
It's only a shame if whoever has authority to regulate mating
rituals fails to clearly spell out the rules of engagement
for everybody in advance and make sure everybody understands
the rules.
-- the Danimal
GoddessBaybee
says...
Um...Danimal you seem to be on a different page here.
This discussion is about office flirting, not about consent or non-consent to
actual sex.
If someone fails to communicate that your office flirting is unwanted then it
aint technically sexual harassment.
If a passed out women fails to communicate that your dick inside her is unwanted
(cuz she's passed out and she cant communicate) and you go ahead and stick your
dick in her, then you're likely to face rape charges.
thems the breaks.
makes sense,
cuz flirting and sex are different.
Seriously, a man having sex with a passed out woman is a separate discussion,
and it doesn't have much to do with some woman hitting on ImJustOne at work,
>Maybe you are replying to a man who has some mental defect
>that renders him incapable of asserting his nonconsent.
I really don't think ImJustOne has a "mental defect that renders him incapable
of asserting his nonconsent". He apparently has a job, and he was apparently
quite capable of communicating the nature of his complaint against the woman in
question to his supervisors.
>What if there is some retarded woman in an institution
>who doesn't understand the game rules? Should the male
>orderlies use her as their sex slave?
What if it rains hamburgers and hotdogs tomorrow?
I mean, that's only slightly more off-topic than yer troll
;)
>> Well, that's what sexual harassment was originally aboot.
>> Unfortunately, sexual harassment complaint policies have been
>> misused by people who won't communicate their disinterest
>> openly, and this is really a shame.
>
>I don't think that's nearly as unfortunate as the fact that
>sexual harassment law discriminates against unattractive men.
Well men who are the victim of distorted sexual harassment claims would be
better off if the women simply told 'em to back off instead of filing a
complaint at work.
In the 'back off' scenario the guy's pride might be hurt from rejection.
In the 'sexual harassment charge' scenario the guy's pride is still hurt from
rejection, but now, on top of that, he might face repercussions at work.
I don't think anybody (male or female) should file a sexual harassment complaint
regarding a co-worker's unwanted office flirting,
if they haven't first told the co-worker to stop it.
>When you see some land you would like to hike on, do you
>start hiking until someone tells you to leave, or do you
>try to find the owner and ask for permission first?
okey-dokey
Here's a more on-topic example:
When I see a person I'd like to talk to,
I might go ahead and talk to 'em without asking permission first.
If they tell me to leave 'em alone, I would leave 'em alone.
>> If you don't make it clear that you want someone to back off, they might not
>> have the slightest clue that their behavior is making you so uncomfortable.
>
>That's also true if someone sees a bicycle leaning against
>a wall somewhere, and hops on it to take a ride without
>asking the owner for permission first. Unless the owner
>posted a sign, s/he did not make it clear the bike is not
>for others to use.
that's only true on planet troll.
but nice try ;)
>Generally we think of other people's bodies as belonging to
>them. One does not unilaterally appropriate other people's
>stuff without specifically asking for some kind of permission
>first.
I agree.
But verbal flirting doesn't violate another person's body.
Touching someone while flirting might violate another person's body.
But if that 'touchy-flirting' is NOT grouping...
If that 'touchy-flirting' aint much more intrusive than standard everyday
touching (like a pat on the back or a handshake), then it doesn't seem like much
of a violation to me.
Of course, if someone tells you to stop, and you won't stop, that's obnoxious.
That is a violation, and it could legally be sexually harassment.
>> >> As a person who also suffers from low self-esteem, part of me "reasoned"
>> >> that it would be best to just ignore her and continue to be the butt of
>> >> her jokes/advances.
>> >> Every time she would pass by or be in the same area I would become very
>> >> agitated, almost as if expecting another incident to occur between us.
>
>Is she fat?
>
>> >> One night she passed by me and puckered her lips and blew me a loud kiss
>> >> in front of some other coworkers, then said something like "hey
>> >> beautiful/sexy."
>>
>> Guys do this sorta stuff to me all the time,
>
>Do they pronounce the slash character?
yes.
>> and it almost never bothers me.
>> In the rare instances when it does, I find that a firm statement such
>> as "cut it out" said in a non-joking manner usually does the trick.
>>
>> When men and women (and currently I think it's mostly women) misuse sexual
>> harassment laws, they make it difficult for people to flirt, interact and
>> get to know each other in a natural setting, such as the workplace.
>
>I guess we'll just have to live with an increase in
>worker productivity.
...and that wouldn't be any fun.
;)
Baybee
RK
wrote:
<snip>
>If she's handling it well after the ya prematurely dragged supervisors into
>whole thing, then my guess is she prolly would have handled it well if you'd
>simply asked her to cut it out. I say prematurely dragged supervisors into the
>whole thing, cuz you never even told her that her sexual advances were
>unwelcome.
According to his response to PC, he *did* tell her. ("Yes, I told her
I wasn't interested and that I didn't like her groping me.") That
should have been enough. (Besides, no one should assume the right to
grope anyone, whether they say something or not.)
-- RK
RK
<the.color.o...@tuned.to.a.dead.channel.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Moral of the story:
>You don't have to put up with someone's bullshit. Make a stand.
Good for you, IJO.
-- RK
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <fenhd090obg4omr5a...@4ax.com> RK
<r...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>should have been enough. (Besides, no one should assume the right to
>grope anyone, whether they say something or not.)
No, but that's what "kino" is all about. Apparently it turns women on
(*) - that sense of entitlement (err... "confidence") that makes a man
just grab whatever he wants.
Yet another example of decent people (not assuming the right to
touch/grope) giving themselves a disadvantage. How long before they get
fed up with the perverse reward system and "flip"?
(*) "In general"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFA2SW//FmLrNfLpjMRAozRAKCHYjrSUfvBnMFiNZ7+n6nH3EQbxgCfYopU
veE69b2TeL7Mz5iMjr9s71c=
=QBB3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
drifter05155
discrimination against the overweight. I grew up fat!
I am a male who lost 60 lbs at 30 years old (too late for the prom),
but understand how society treats the overweight. Although I certainly
cannot speak for them as a member, women face a particularly hard
time. People tend to tolerate fat men (ie, Lou Costello or Ollie Hardy
or, even, Rerun) and sometimes even fall in love with them. In the
movies the fat lady never gets the hero! Only as pointed out a hard
time!
Eric Witte
> "PC" <proble...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:11cdc7cd.04062...@posting.google.com...
> message news:<FafBc.15277$Yb1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> > > I actually stood up for myself for once last week when I contacted the
> > > managers and made a complaint of sexual harassment against a female
> > > employee.
> >
> > a complaint against her, instead. Is she ugly or something?
>
> Her looks are irrelevant in this matter. She totally invaded my personal
> space and is trying to control me for what purpose, I do not know. I'm very
> tentative about having women fling themselves on me, partly because of the
> sad truth that I do not belong to the Brad Pitt class of men that attract
> this sort of attention. It was never about attraction, it was about
> humiliation and superiority.
Gay?
Eric
Trainspotter
> >What if there is some retarded woman in an institution
> >who doesn't understand the game rules? Should the male
> >orderlies use her as their sex slave?
>
> What if it rains hamburgers and hotdogs tomorrow?
>
> I mean, that's only slightly more off-topic than yer troll
> ;)
lol Certainly.
>
> >> Well, that's what sexual harassment was originally aboot.
> >> Unfortunately, sexual harassment complaint policies have been
> >> misused by people who won't communicate their disinterest
> >> openly, and this is really a shame.
> >
> >I don't think that's nearly as unfortunate as the fact that
> >sexual harassment law discriminates against unattractive men.
>
> Well men who are the victim of distorted sexual harassment claims would be
> better off if the women simply told 'em to back off instead of filing a
> complaint at work.
Absolutely.
>
> In the 'back off' scenario the guy's pride might be hurt from rejection.
>
> In the 'sexual harassment charge' scenario the guy's pride is still hurt from
> rejection, but now, on top of that, he might face repercussions at work.
>
> I don't think anybody (male or female) should file a sexual harassment complaint
> regarding a co-worker's unwanted office flirting,
> if they haven't first told the co-worker to stop it.
True. I would go so far as to say that it should be a formal
requirement to put the other person on notice. This is such a grey
area (unlike, as you point out, a guy playing hide the sausage with an
unconscious female who has never granted him consensual sexual access)
that it seems only reasonable that the offending party should be put
on notice prior to the hammer falling. Otherwise, normal human
communication and interaction is chilled, and the room for abuse and
false claims dramatically expanded.
And after all, isn't it really the nutjobs who will not cease and
desist that we really want to get anyway? And not the average schmuck
who was acting within the bounds of normal conversation and propriety?
Of course, there would still be grey areas. For instance, a person who
really did something lude and crude should not be given that first
"free pass" (which in effect one would get if there was a straight one
sized fits all rule that you must put the other person on notice
first).
In short, there probably can't be a one sized fits all rule here...but
unless a person can point to some action that truly goes beyond the
pale of reasonable human interaction and behavior, they should
definitely put the offender on notice before taking formal action. And
again, it would be better if there was a formal notice requirement for
such situations. The result would be that a person would either have
to show that A) they had given notice to the other person, and that
person did not stop or B) the other person crossed the line of
reasonable social behavior in such a way that no notice is required,
and formal action to punish that behavior is immediately called for.
>
> >When you see some land you would like to hike on, do you
> >start hiking until someone tells you to leave, or do you
> >try to find the owner and ask for permission first?
>
> okey-dokey
>
> Here's a more on-topic example:
>
> When I see a person I'd like to talk to,
> I might go ahead and talk to 'em without asking permission first.
> If they tell me to leave 'em alone, I would leave 'em alone.
Sounds fair enough. But what if the person was a political refugee who
thought you were with the secret service of some terrible tyranical
regime, and he was afraid to tell you to leave him alone?
What then? Huh??? What then???
Oh, sorry. Not sure what happened there. Had a Danimal moment. lol
>
> >Generally we think of other people's bodies as belonging to
> >them. One does not unilaterally appropriate other people's
> >stuff without specifically asking for some kind of permission
> >first.
>
> I agree.
> But verbal flirting doesn't violate another person's body.
>
> Touching someone while flirting might violate another person's body.
> But if that 'touchy-flirting' is NOT grouping...
> If that 'touchy-flirting' aint much more intrusive than standard everyday
> touching (like a pat on the back or a handshake), then it doesn't seem like much
> of a violation to me.
>
> Of course, if someone tells you to stop, and you won't stop, that's obnoxious.
> That is a violation, and it could legally be sexually harassment.
Certainly, not to mention that the law has always drawn a distinction
between a legally recognizable "unwanted touching" (a battery) as
opposed to normal interaction. In other words, it's one thing for
someone to grab a girl's breast without permission. It's quite another
to pat someone on the back when they had no reason to believe that
such a pat is unwanted. Now, once they DO have reason to believe that
the pat on the back is unwanted (they've been put on notice), then
that's another matter.
These sorts of distinctions are important. How would we like it if the
law erased these distinctions, and accidently bumping into someone on
a bus was treated the same as purposefully grabbing someone's crotch?
These are two totally different things. Yes, they may both be
"unwanted touchings" in some respects, but it is obvious that they
should have different legal implications. And traditionally, they have
had different implications.
The problem with the way sexual harrassment situations are handled is
that these distinctions seem to get blurred to the point where
entirely reasonable and socially acceptable behaviors can ruin a
person's life. That's why, for socially reasonable behaviors, I think
it is critically important to put the offender on notice.
My true friend is myself
>
> Um...Danimal you seem to be on a different page here.
> This discussion is about office flirting, not about consent or non-consent to
> actual sex.
About office flirting indeed, but the aspect of consent or non-consent
involved
here too. If it's a consented office flirting, he would not have
filed, would he?
>
> If someone fails to communicate that your office flirting is unwanted then it
> aint technically sexual harassment.
What is the clear definition of failing to communicate? Exactly what
should
be said in order to ensure that there'd be no failure in communicating
that particular office flirting is unwanted? Once I told a woman to go
fuck herself in hell and yet she still made advances, did I fail to
communicate clearly?
>
> If a passed out women fails to communicate that your dick inside her is unwanted
> (cuz she's passed out and she cant communicate) and you go ahead and stick your
> dick in her, then you're likely to face rape charges.
>
> thems the breaks.
>
> makes sense,
> cuz flirting and sex are different.
>
> Seriously, a man having sex with a passed out woman is a separate discussion,
> and it doesn't have much to do with some woman hitting on ImJustOne at work,
>
> >Maybe you are replying to a man who has some mental defect
> >that renders him incapable of asserting his nonconsent.
>
> I really don't think ImJustOne has a "mental defect that renders him incapable
> of asserting his nonconsent". He apparently has a job, and he was apparently
> quite capable of communicating the nature of his complaint against the woman in
> question to his supervisors.
Indeed, he should have more balls to tell her to go to hell.
>
> >What if there is some retarded woman in an institution
> >who doesn't understand the game rules? Should the male
> >orderlies use her as their sex slave?
>
> What if it rains hamburgers and hotdogs tomorrow?
>
> I mean, that's only slightly more off-topic than yer troll
> ;)
>
> >> Well, that's what sexual harassment was originally aboot.
> >> Unfortunately, sexual harassment complaint policies have been
> >> misused by people who won't communicate their disinterest
> >> openly, and this is really a shame.
> >
> >I don't think that's nearly as unfortunate as the fact that
> >sexual harassment law discriminates against unattractive men.
>
> Well men who are the victim of distorted sexual harassment claims would be
> better off if the women simply told 'em to back off instead of filing a
> complaint at work.
>
> In the 'back off' scenario the guy's pride might be hurt from rejection.
>
> In the 'sexual harassment charge' scenario the guy's pride is still hurt from
> rejection, but now, on top of that, he might face repercussions at work.
>
> I don't think anybody (male or female) should file a sexual harassment complaint
> regarding a co-worker's unwanted office flirting,
> if they haven't first told the co-worker to stop it.
True, but what should they exactly tell so that there'd be no failure
in communication??
>
> >When you see some land you would like to hike on, do you
> >start hiking until someone tells you to leave, or do you
> >try to find the owner and ask for permission first?
>
> okey-dokey
>
> Here's a more on-topic example:
>
> When I see a person I'd like to talk to,
> I might go ahead and talk to 'em without asking permission first.
> If they tell me to leave 'em alone, I would leave 'em alone.
>
>
> >> If you don't make it clear that you want someone to back off, they might not
> >> have the slightest clue that their behavior is making you so uncomfortable.
How to make it clear/what exactly to say to make them back off? From
personal experiences, an already fucked-up-in-the-head and
horny-in-the-pussy woman will ignore even insults and maintaining her
delusions that actually I secretly desire her also but too shy to
admit it even to myself.
> >
> >That's also true if someone sees a bicycle leaning against
> >a wall somewhere, and hops on it to take a ride without
> >asking the owner for permission first. Unless the owner
> >posted a sign, s/he did not make it clear the bike is not
> >for others to use.
>
> that's only true on planet troll.
>
> but nice try ;)
>
> >Generally we think of other people's bodies as belonging to
> >them. One does not unilaterally appropriate other people's
> >stuff without specifically asking for some kind of permission
> >first.
>
> I agree.
> But verbal flirting doesn't violate another person's body.
True, but still it violate their basic rights for a decent respect.
You also do not violate a Jewish with bodily harm if you shout "kike"
at them but you violate their rights for decent respect they deserve.
Oh I see, in your misandrous mind, only women are entitled to verbal
respect.
Yeah right, go tell you dad that men are dogs.
The Danimal
> > harassment complaint regarding a co-worker's unwanted office
> > flirting, if they haven't first told the co-worker to stop it.
That's a fair policy as long as the person who wants the
flirting to stop feels perfectly free to express disinterest.
There are factors that can inhibit the flirt-target's
ability to speak freely. For example, there may be some
penalty to the flirt-target if he or she rebuffs the flirter.
Workplace politics may come into play. Someone who has the
power to make your job easier or harder may put you in a
tricky position by becoming sexually aggressive.
That's one reason why workplaces are simpler when they consist
entirely of people who have no sexual interest in each other.
For example, a group of straight men. When those men go to work,
they work. After hours, they go out and look for women.
Expanding the workforce to include women introduces new
complicating social factors into the workplace which were
less common in the old days when workforces tended to be
more segregated by sex.
There will still be plenty of politics in an asexual office,
but adding sex to the mix complicates it further.
> True. I would go so far as to say that it should be a formal
> requirement to put the other person on notice.
Why not institute the more reasonable requirement for the
aggressor to apply for specific permission to flirt with
someone?
If you own property, the burden is not on you to actively
inform everybody who happens by that they should stay off
your property. Generally the understanding is that anyone
who wants to use something that belongs to someone else
needs to ask for permission first.
Before one person should go imposing on another person
(such as, for example, by flirting and touching, or
borrowing the stapler from his desk), it makes sense for
the aggressor to ask if what s/he wants to do is OK.
That's just common courtesy. I would hope.
> This is such a grey
> area (unlike, as you point out, a guy playing hide the sausage with an
> unconscious female who has never granted him consensual sexual access)
> that it seems only reasonable that the offending party should be put
> on notice prior to the hammer falling. Otherwise, normal human
> communication and interaction is chilled, and the room for abuse and
> false claims dramatically expanded.
The whole point is to chill the normal human sexual interaction
which so often causes problems in a workplace.
However, I don't think the policies reduce the
number of workplace hookups too much.
Consider: if a man and woman feel a strong mutual attraction
for each other, and they would each like to act on it,
each will tend to respond immediately and favorably
to the slightest overture from the other. Such overtures
will quickly and pleasantly escalate, and the excited
couple will easily hook up. It could start with a wink
and a smile and snowball from there.
Sexual harassment policies would hamper scenarios in
which, at least initially, person Y feels more strongly
attracted to person X than person X feels attracted to
person Y. Because person X does not immediately respond
to person Y's initial subtle signs of interest (for example,
by keeping a poker face and responding to questions
barely if at all), person Y has to express interest
more explicitly, to goad person X to make a choice.
That is, when person X was not already thinking about getting
with person Y, person Y tries to do more things to put the
idea "out there" so person X has to say yes or no.
But as any man who has hit on women knows, the more effort
a man has to make to get with a particular woman, the lower
are his odds of success with her.
This means the first casualty of sexual harassment guidelines
will be those sexual opportunities that had a low probability
of success anyway. The high-probability opportunities won't
be affected much at all.
This is why sexual harassment policies discriminate
against people who are less immediately attractive. Those are the
very people who usually fail to turn on members of the opposite
sex quickly and easily. They have to work harder at it. They
have to take more risks. They are more likely to become
bothersome.
Sexual harassment policies essentially turn the workplace
into a kind of speed-dating arena. In speed-dating, a group
of men and women take turns talking as couples for seven
minutes each. Observers have found, not too surprisingly,
that physically attractive people enjoy much more success
than physically unattractive people under those conditions.
What else can two people experience in just seven minutes
other than mostly a quick superficial attraction? This is
going to be primarily a result of how they react to each
other's appearance, along with other physical features
such as how their voices sound, and how they carry
themselves. People who look good trigger that kind of
reaction more often.
> And after all, isn't it really the nutjobs who will not cease and
> desist that we really want to get anyway? And not the average schmuck
> who was acting within the bounds of normal conversation and propriety?
>
> Of course, there would still be grey areas. For instance, a person who
> really did something lude and crude should not be given that first
> "free pass" (which in effect one would get if there was a straight one
> sized fits all rule that you must put the other person on notice
> first).
One might eliminate all gray areas by requiring everyone in
the workplace who wants to flirt with someone to register
first with some authority. To avoid all possibility of
coercion, these registrations would remain secret, and
the authority would wait for two people to independently
register their interest in flirting with each other before
notifying both parties with a go-ahead.
Of course this system would fail immediately because it's
too easy for attractive people to circumvent simply by
smiling and winking at each other, and because most people
would like to keep their sex lives secret even while
victims of sexual harassment want public authority
to protect them.
> In short, there probably can't be a one sized fits all rule here...but
> unless a person can point to some action that truly goes beyond the
> pale of reasonable human interaction and behavior, they should
> definitely put the offender on notice before taking formal action.
Humans are diverse, and they define "reasonable" in diverse ways,
so the workplace arbiter of sex will have to define the game rules
in as much detail as is necessary to regulate any other sport.
You could not play a game of basketball and just leave everything
up to the players to decide what they consider "reasonable." Well,
you might if it's a pickup game and the outcome is not too important.
But in an important game, the temptation to fudge becomes too much,
so referees have to watch everything and make calls.
> > >When you see some land you would like to hike on, do you
> > >start hiking until someone tells you to leave, or do you
> > >try to find the owner and ask for permission first?
> >
> > okey-dokey
> >
> > Here's a more on-topic example:
> >
> > When I see a person I'd like to talk to,
> > I might go ahead and talk to 'em without asking permission first.
> > If they tell me to leave 'em alone, I would leave 'em alone.
>
> Sounds fair enough. But what if the person was a political refugee who
> thought you were with the secret service of some terrible tyranical
> regime, and he was afraid to tell you to leave him alone?
>
> What then? Huh??? What then???
Or what if it's a co-worker who is not your boss, but who can
grant or withhold favors?
In the realm of office politics it can hurt you to make enemies,
and help you to make friends. These are not strangers you will
never see again.
> Oh, sorry. Not sure what happened there. Had a Danimal moment. lol
I feel your pain.
How did it feel to be sexually repulsive to GoddessBaybee for
a moment? Did you find yourself yearning for the future golden
age of sexbots?
> > >Generally we think of other people's bodies as belonging to
> > >them. One does not unilaterally appropriate other people's
> > >stuff without specifically asking for some kind of permission
> > >first.
> >
> > I agree.
> > But verbal flirting doesn't violate another person's body.
Way back at the start of this thread, the original complainer
mentioned unwanted caressing.
It's also possible for words alone to upset people. Just about
everybody has their own particular trigger-words.
Just because a particular verbal message does not bother you
does not mean it is appropriate for everybody.
> > Touching someone while flirting might violate another person's body.
> > But if that 'touchy-flirting' is NOT grouping...
> > If that 'touchy-flirting' aint much more intrusive than standard everyday
> > touching (like a pat on the back or a handshake), then it doesn't seem like much
> > of a violation to me.
Handshakes tend to be mutual: both people extend their hands
to each other. If someone does not extend their hand, you
don't reach in and grab it.
Pats on the back are a bit more intrusive. After giving one,
a person should not give another one until the person he patted
returns the gesture.
If someone pats you on the back every time he sees you, and
you never make a move to touch him, that starts to get a bit
invasive, don't you think?
> > Of course, if someone tells you to stop, and you won't stop, that's obnoxious.
> > That is a violation, and it could legally be sexually harassment.
Obviously the safest strategy for the aggressor would be to
ask for and receive an explicit expression of consent.
One cannot interpret silence as consent. Silence could mean
many things.
Some people are very inhibited about certain kinds of
communication. This may be hard for a woman like GoddessBaybee
to understand, given her lack of inhibition about
expressing her opinions to the world on Usenet.
I can picture GoddessBaybee in the real world having no
difficulty speaking her mind.
There are, presumably, lots of people who read Usenet and
never post a thing. Not everyone is equally forthcoming.
> Certainly, not to mention that the law has always drawn a distinction
> between a legally recognizable "unwanted touching" (a battery) as
> opposed to normal interaction. In other words, it's one thing for
> someone to grab a girl's breast without permission.
Women could wear clothes with labels clearly indicating
the various access permissions, along with the procedure
for upgrading from "stranger" to "boyfriend" access.
> It's quite another
> to pat someone on the back when they had no reason to believe that
> such a pat is unwanted. Now, once they DO have reason to believe that
> the pat on the back is unwanted (they've been put on notice), then
> that's another matter.
I like my formula where you get at most one free pat, and
after that it's pat-for-pat.
> These sorts of distinctions are important. How would we like it if the
> law erased these distinctions, and accidently bumping into someone on
> a bus was treated the same as purposefully grabbing someone's crotch?
> These are two totally different things. Yes, they may both be
> "unwanted touchings" in some respects, but it is obvious that they
> should have different legal implications. And traditionally, they have
> had different implications.
And, of course, there are some men who specialize in
"""accidentally""" bumping into women.
Wherever people draw lines, other people will see how
far they can push the lines.
> The problem with the way sexual harrassment situations are handled is
> that these distinctions seem to get blurred to the point where
> entirely reasonable and socially acceptable behaviors can ruin a
> person's life.
But in most cases those "reasonable" behaviors probably would
have been futile anyway. Hitting on women who aren't already
showing some hint of interest is usually unproductive for
a man. Not always, but usually.
The point is that it's very easy for a woman to show interest
in a man if she wants to. Which means if she shows no interest,
odds are she isn't feeling any.
> That's why, for socially reasonable behaviors, I think
> it is critically important to put the offender on notice.
By requiring the target of aggression to actively signal
disinterest, you make "interest" the default response.
In practice, it is prudent for the aggressor to request
and wait for explicit permission before proceeding, or at
least look for reciprocation to the first mild overtures.
How can you safely interpret silence as consent? Silence
could mean any number of things.
-- the Danimal
Trainspotter
> > > I don't think anybody (male or female) should file a sexual
> > > harassment complaint regarding a co-worker's unwanted office
> > > flirting, if they haven't first told the co-worker to stop it.
>
> That's a fair policy as long as the person who wants the
> flirting to stop feels perfectly free to express disinterest.
Should general policy be based on someone feeling "perfectly" free to
express disinterest? In an imperfect world?
Aren't most of us regularly confronted with circumstances where we
must communicate something - typically bad news or a refusal - that
makes us uncomfortable?
Yet public policy has to assume, at the end of the day, that a
reasonable person can communicate a rejection. Whether they are
"perfectly comfortable" with it cannot normally come into play.
>
> There are factors that can inhibit the flirt-target's
> ability to speak freely. For example, there may be some
> penalty to the flirt-target if he or she rebuffs the flirter.
> Workplace politics may come into play. Someone who has the
> power to make your job easier or harder may put you in a
> tricky position by becoming sexually aggressive.
True enough. But law (or just company policy) should attempt to
balance the equities, not expect perfection in an imperfect world.
>
> That's one reason why workplaces are simpler when they consist
> entirely of people who have no sexual interest in each other.
> For example, a group of straight men. When those men go to work,
> they work. After hours, they go out and look for women.
No disputing that.
>
> Expanding the workforce to include women introduces new
> complicating social factors into the workplace which were
> less common in the old days when workforces tended to be
> more segregated by sex.
Sure, but even then you tended to have a large clerical staff, a staff
which was largely female. See the 1960 film "The Apartment" for a
(hopefully) exaggerated look at this.
>
> There will still be plenty of politics in an asexual office,
> but adding sex to the mix complicates it further.
>
> > True. I would go so far as to say that it should be a formal
> > requirement to put the other person on notice.
>
> Why not institute the more reasonable requirement for the
> aggressor to apply for specific permission to flirt with
> someone?
I don't think such a requirement is "more reasonable". One reason
among many being that flirting, while sometimes obvious, is often a
grey area. It may begin with no clear intent. Why would someone ask
for permission for something they do not intend to do?
Not to mention issues of misinterpretations and misunderstandings. One
person thinks the other is flirting, when in fact the other had no
such intent or interest at all. He was "just being friendly". And of
course, pre-registration wouldn't solve the many other problems as
well. The offender simply doesn't ask for persmission...and carries on
as usual. Then, when accused, he says "Who?? Me??? Little ol' innocent
me? Surely you jest?" At which point we are right back where we
started...just where we are today. Maybe he's lying, maybe he's being
perfectly honest in his denial. Again, we are back at our current
square one.
Or he gets "permission", and then abuses it - something that could be
done in a myriad of ways.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that pre-registration simply
adds an extra administrative layer without really solving a thing. At
the end of the day, we are right back where we started from.
>
> If you own property, the burden is not on you to actively
> inform everybody who happens by that they should stay off
> your property. Generally the understanding is that anyone
> who wants to use something that belongs to someone else
> needs to ask for permission first.
If you don't want any solicitors to come to your door, the burden is
in fact on you to actively inform them. Otherwise, it is perfectly
legitimate for a person to cross your property and ring your door
bell. It is up to you to reject them.
Your property example fits my argument quite well, and seems to refute
yours.
>
> Before one person should go imposing on another person
> (such as, for example, by flirting and touching, or
> borrowing the stapler from his desk), it makes sense for
> the aggressor to ask if what s/he wants to do is OK.
>
> That's just common courtesy. I would hope.
Certainly. But flirting isn't the equivilant of running off with
someone's stapler without permission. That's theft. But it is
reasonable for you to ask to borrow the stapler.
Flirting is seeking to gain the other person's interest and consent,
probably leading to sexual access at some future point. Taking it
without their consent would be rape.
It seems that you are confusing the parts of your analogy. The
flirting or asking out IS the asking "if what s/he wants to do is OK."
That's how that particular thing (romantic involvement) is asked for.
>
> > This is such a grey
> > area (unlike, as you point out, a guy playing hide the sausage with an
> > unconscious female who has never granted him consensual sexual access)
> > that it seems only reasonable that the offending party should be put
> > on notice prior to the hammer falling. Otherwise, normal human
> > communication and interaction is chilled, and the room for abuse and
> > false claims dramatically expanded.
>
> The whole point is to chill the normal human sexual interaction
> which so often causes problems in a workplace.
I thought the whole point was to chill inappropriate behaviors, not
appropriate behaviors.
> But as any man who has hit on women knows, the more effort
> a man has to make to get with a particular woman, the lower
> are his odds of success with her.
True enough.
>
> This means the first casualty of sexual harassment guidelines
> will be those sexual opportunities that had a low probability
> of success anyway. The high-probability opportunities won't
> be affected much at all.
There are many casualties. Without any sort of notice requirement, the
room for false and abusive claims is far greater. People's reputations
and careers can be destroyed. And then there is a general discomfort
and paranoia.
>
> This is why sexual harassment policies discriminate
> against people who are less immediately attractive. Those are the
> very people who usually fail to turn on members of the opposite
> sex quickly and easily. They have to work harder at it. They
> have to take more risks. They are more likely to become
> bothersome.
It also hampers the "straight arrows". The types of people who are big
on walking the chalk.
>
> Sexual harassment policies essentially turn the workplace
> into a kind of speed-dating arena. In speed-dating, a group
> of men and women take turns talking as couples for seven
> minutes each. Observers have found, not too surprisingly,
> that physically attractive people enjoy much more success
> than physically unattractive people under those conditions.
> What else can two people experience in just seven minutes
> other than mostly a quick superficial attraction? This is
> going to be primarily a result of how they react to each
> other's appearance, along with other physical features
> such as how their voices sound, and how they carry
> themselves. People who look good trigger that kind of
> reaction more often.
True enough...but then those are the people who are going to do well
with the opposite sex regardless. The world is their their
speed-dating arena, and they consistently do well at it. That is,
until Father Time gets the better of them.
This of course ties into your earlier comment that such laws tend to
work against less attractive men.
>
> > And after all, isn't it really the nutjobs who will not cease and
> > desist that we really want to get anyway? And not the average schmuck
> > who was acting within the bounds of normal conversation and propriety?
> >
> > Of course, there would still be grey areas. For instance, a person who
> > really did something lude and crude should not be given that first
> > "free pass" (which in effect one would get if there was a straight one
> > sized fits all rule that you must put the other person on notice
> > first).
>
> One might eliminate all gray areas by requiring everyone in
> the workplace who wants to flirt with someone to register
> first with some authority. To avoid all possibility of
> coercion, these registrations would remain secret, and
> the authority would wait for two people to independently
> register their interest in flirting with each other before
> notifying both parties with a go-ahead.
As noted earlier, this wouldn't solve the problem at all.
Example (one of many):
1. Guy doesn't register.
2. Guy continues to interact with females at work.
3. He thinks he is just being friendly...
4. Bam!!! The hammer falls...and he never saw it coming.
5. We're right back where we started, and pre-registration didn't
solve a thing.
Not to mention that pre-registering would not in any way ameliorate
false or vindictive claims, nor would it in any way protect the guy
(or girl) acting in good faith but who happened to make the mistake of
interacting with a hypersensitive nutjob. Nor would it be able to
control the zillion ways in which a person could abuse a "permission"
that is once given. And so on.
>
> Of course this system would fail immediately because it's
> too easy for attractive people to circumvent simply by
> smiling and winking at each other, and because most people
> would like to keep their sex lives secret even while
> victims of sexual harassment want public authority
> to protect them.
Sure, but in the case of attractive people "winking"...no harm, no
foul. Then it's not harassment, and is therefore out of the purview of
the harassment issue.
>
> > In short, there probably can't be a one sized fits all rule here...but
> > unless a person can point to some action that truly goes beyond the
> > pale of reasonable human interaction and behavior, they should
> > definitely put the offender on notice before taking formal action.
>
> Humans are diverse, and they define "reasonable" in diverse ways,
> so the workplace arbiter of sex will have to define the game rules
> in as much detail as is necessary to regulate any other sport.
A huge portion of law (particularly torts, but many other areas as
well) is based on the "reasonable person" standard. This common law
evolved over numerous centuries. I'm confident that the reasonable
person approach can accomodate sexual harassment scenarios as well.
>
> You could not play a game of basketball and just leave everything
> up to the players to decide what they consider "reasonable." Well,
> you might if it's a pickup game and the outcome is not too important.
> But in an important game, the temptation to fudge becomes too much,
> so referees have to watch everything and make calls.
And there will be referees. The point is that the *rules* must be
understandable and reasonable.
You can't play an important game if the rules of the game are unknown
or constantly changing, or overly subject to caprice and whim. The
rules at least have to be stable. If they aren't, then even good
referees won't be able to do their jobs properly.
> > Sounds fair enough. But what if the person was a political refugee who
> > thought you were with the secret service of some terrible tyranical
> > regime, and he was afraid to tell you to leave him alone?
> >
> > What then? Huh??? What then???
>
> Or what if it's a co-worker who is not your boss, but who can
> grant or withhold favors?
What if?
>
> In the realm of office politics it can hurt you to make enemies,
> and help you to make friends. These are not strangers you will
> never see again.
True enough.
>
> > Oh, sorry. Not sure what happened there. Had a Danimal moment. lol
>
> I feel your pain.
>
> How did it feel to be sexually repulsive to GoddessBaybee for
> a moment? Did you find yourself yearning for the future golden
> age of sexbots?
Hey, I'm all for your golden age of sexbots. But then again, even
assuming that they become technologically feasible, good luck getting
them past the feminists. It has become increasingly apparent to me
that many feminists are not really concerned about improving the lot
of women, but are simply motivated by a hatred of men, and a desire to
see men unhappy.
I believe they would go to great lengths to keep such sexbots illegal
(assuming the sexbots truly mimiced real human beings closely enough
to "appear real"...which I assume is sort of the whole point).
>
> > > >Generally we think of other people's bodies as belonging to
> > > >them. One does not unilaterally appropriate other people's
> > > >stuff without specifically asking for some kind of permission
> > > >first.
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > > But verbal flirting doesn't violate another person's body.
>
> Way back at the start of this thread, the original complainer
> mentioned unwanted caressing.
In my view, that's getting over the line.
>
> It's also possible for words alone to upset people. Just about
> everybody has their own particular trigger-words.
Back to the reasonable person standard. The abstract "reasonable
person" is not a hyper sensitive loon.
>
> Just because a particular verbal message does not bother you
> does not mean it is appropriate for everybody.
No, it doesn't. But the old saying "Hard cases make bad law" somewhat
comes into play here. We can't gear everything toward the flukes. It's
an imperfect world, and we simply have to do the best that we can.
Which is why, over the centuries, so much effort has been put into the
"reasonable person" standard.
>
> If someone pats you on the back every time he sees you, and
> you never make a move to touch him, that starts to get a bit
> invasive, don't you think?
Um...I suppose it could. I'm not a "back patter" by nature, but of
course I've known guys who are. So I never return the gesture...but
that doesn't make them intrusive. It's up to the person to tell them
to stop. It's easy to come up with an excuse (Hey man, I've got some
back problems...unless you want to pay my doctor's bills...). And, of
course, there is just the straight old "I don't appreciate that.
Please don't do it again."
>
> > > Of course, if someone tells you to stop, and you won't stop, that's obnoxious.
> > > That is a violation, and it could legally be sexually harassment.
>
> Obviously the safest strategy for the aggressor would be to
> ask for and receive an explicit expression of consent.
> One cannot interpret silence as consent. Silence could mean
> many things.
It doesn't solve the problem of the dishonest aggressor, nor does it
solve the problem of the guy who doesn't see himself as the aggressor
at all, nor does it solve the possibility of false or vindictive
claims, or really most of the problems associated with this subject.
And even for the honest aggressor, there are still a zillion ways that
he could get nailed for exceeding the scope of him permission.
Pre-registering quite simply doesn't solve much of anything. It would
probably do far more harm than good, which is never the mark of a good
policy.
Not to mention that it goes against many of the rules of normal human
interaction. For example, flirting often happens on the fly, with no
pre-conceived plans on the part of the "flirter".
>
> Some people are very inhibited about certain kinds of
> communication. This may be hard for a woman like GoddessBaybee
> to understand, given her lack of inhibition about
> expressing her opinions to the world on Usenet.
> I can picture GoddessBaybee in the real world having no
> difficulty speaking her mind.
>
> There are, presumably, lots of people who read Usenet and
> never post a thing. Not everyone is equally forthcoming.
True enough, but again, back to the reasonable person standard. The
reasonable person is expected to be able to reject someone. If a
solicitor comes to a person's door, the reasonable person is expected
to be able to send them on their way. We don't make it illegal for ANY
solicitor to ring your bell just because there might be some people
who "Can't say no".
>
> > Certainly, not to mention that the law has always drawn a distinction
> > between a legally recognizable "unwanted touching" (a battery) as
> > opposed to normal interaction. In other words, it's one thing for
> > someone to grab a girl's breast without permission.
>
> Women could wear clothes with labels clearly indicating
> the various access permissions, along with the procedure
> for upgrading from "stranger" to "boyfriend" access.
Yes, they could. But we both know that they wouldn't. Why do we have
to turn human interaction upside down, when we have the perfectly
reasonable option of simply expecting people to put the offender on
notice?
>
> > It's quite another
> > to pat someone on the back when they had no reason to believe that
> > such a pat is unwanted. Now, once they DO have reason to believe that
> > the pat on the back is unwanted (they've been put on notice), then
> > that's another matter.
>
> I like my formula where you get at most one free pat, and
> after that it's pat-for-pat.
That's just not how normal human interaction works.
>
> > These sorts of distinctions are important. How would we like it if the
> > law erased these distinctions, and accidently bumping into someone on
> > a bus was treated the same as purposefully grabbing someone's crotch?
> > These are two totally different things. Yes, they may both be
> > "unwanted touchings" in some respects, but it is obvious that they
> > should have different legal implications. And traditionally, they have
> > had different implications.
>
> And, of course, there are some men who specialize in
> """accidentally""" bumping into women.
Which is yet another reason why pre-registering wouldn't work.
>
> Wherever people draw lines, other people will see how
> far they can push the lines.
True enough. But by putting the offender on notice, a line is drawn.
If it is crossed again, the offender is liable. There will be teeth on
the other side of the line.
> The point is that it's very easy for a woman to show interest
> in a man if she wants to. Which means if she shows no interest,
> odds are she isn't feeling any.
I doubt most of the schlubs who are married today were the
beneficiaries of "instant attraction". Most of them probably had to
put some effort and time into it.
>
> > That's why, for socially reasonable behaviors, I think
> > it is critically important to put the offender on notice.
>
> By requiring the target of aggression to actively signal
> disinterest, you make "interest" the default response.
I think the default would be better characterized as simply
acknowledging that reasonable human interaction is acceptable unless
one is put on notice that it is not.
>
> In practice, it is prudent for the aggressor to request
> and wait for explicit permission before proceeding, or at
> least look for reciprocation to the first mild overtures.
Gets permission for what? So once the aggressor gets "permission",
what if he gets out of line? What if he goes "too far"?
Human interactions and relationships aren't static. Once he gets
permission, lord only knows what he might pull next...all under the
cover of permission, of course.
The bottom line is that we still end up at my solution: the "victim"
has to be able to react to an offense. Pre-registering doesn't
fundamentally eliminate this requirement. Instead, it only adds an
unnecessary and awkward additional layer that few people would likely
avail themselves of...while solving virtually nothing even if they did
(as I explained earlier).
>
> How can you safely interpret silence as consent? Silence
> could mean any number of things.
Sure. You could be talking to someone, and even though all you see is
someone apparently listening to what you have to say, they could in
fact be experiencing an inferno of hatred, and at that very moment be
planning to slit your throat. It's possible.
But the rules of normal human interaction are geared toward the, well,
normal.
In normal human interaction, if you sit and listen while someone else
talks to you, your silence is reasonably taken as "consent" that it is
o.k. for them to talk to you, at least at that moment in time. It's a
reasonable expectation, and one that we all operate by.
The same way that a solicitor who talks to you on your doorstep can
reasonably believe that he has temporary permission to be on the
property until you inform him otherwise.
Ray Gordon
kiss
> >> in front of some other coworkers, then said something like "hey
> >> beautiful/sexy."
>
> Guys do this sorta stuff to me all the time, and it almost never bothers
me.
> In the rare instances when it does, I find that a firm statement such as
"cut it
> out" said in a non-joking manner usually does the trick.
Subcommunication: she's telling you she's pretty (or so she thinks).
Further, why should she mind what is probably the reason she got hired in
the first place? Bias is okay when women profit from it.
> >> That's what I wanted to see- someone treating me with some respect.
>
> If she's handling it well after the ya prematurely dragged supervisors
into
> whole thing, then my guess is she prolly would have handled it well if
you'd
> simply asked her to cut it out. I say prematurely dragged supervisors
into the
> whole thing, cuz you never even told her that her sexual advances were
> unwelcome.
>
> When men and women (and currently I think it's mostly women) misuse sexual
> harassment laws, they make it difficult for people to flirt, interact and
get to
> know each other in a natural setting, such as the workplace.
It's only a natural setting when employers stop selecting eye candy to be in
the "environment" in the first place.
Ray Gordon
> who doesn't understand the game rules? Should the male
> orderlies use her as their sex slave?
Have you been watching cable movies again?
> > Well, that's what sexual harassment was originally aboot.
> > Unfortunately, sexual harassment complaint policies have been
> > misused by people who won't communicate their disinterest
> > openly, and this is really a shame.
>
> I don't think that's nearly as unfortunate as the fact that
> sexual harassment law discriminates against unattractive men.
"If Clarence Thomas looked like Denzel Washington, you never would have
heard of Anita Hill."
> Trial by jury discriminates against the ugly to some degree---
> psychologists have constructed experiments showing that
> physically unattractive defendents are more likely to be
> convicted than handsome/beautiful ones---but sexual
> harassment law directly penalizes people for being sexually
> unattractive, by giving them far more opportunities to violate
> the law than people with high sexual market value have.
Yes and no. In theory, since they are employed, they can presumably afford
hookers. If all sex occurred in the workplace, you'd be correct.
I think this is the first time in six years I've ever found a logical flaw
in Dan's arguments.
> Not only opportunity, but motive.
>It's like punishing people
> for stealing bread. Hungry people are more likely to violate
> that law than well-fed people.
Not necessarily: more attractive men are less likely to believe rejection,
so the opposite may be true.
> Nobody said life was fair, of course.
I am never fair to anyone who tells me life isn't fair.
> > People really aint mindreaders.
>
> When you see some land you would like to hike on, do you
> start hiking until someone tells you to leave, or do you
> try to find the owner and ask for permission first?
Land doesn't have nerve endings the way people do.
If it's Area 51, you better know the rules of the game, too.
> > If you don't make it clear that you want someone to back off, they might
not
> > have the slightest clue that their behavior is making you so
uncomfortable.
>
> That's also true if someone sees a bicycle leaning against
> a wall somewhere, and hops on it to take a ride without
> asking the owner for permission first. Unless the owner
> posted a sign, s/he did not make it clear the bike is not
> for others to use.
Legally you are correct; practically, you're irrelevant.
> Generally we think of other people's bodies as belonging to
> them. One does not unilaterally appropriate other people's
> stuff without specifically asking for some kind of permission
> first.
Asking for permission can even be harassment though.
> > >> Every time she would pass by or be in the same area I would become
very
> > >> agitated, almost as if expecting another incident to occur between
us.
>
> Is she fat?
One woman's magazine did an article where they tried to trivialize sexual
harassment by saying that the men were usually unattractive, while the
females were generally attractive.
They also held the genders to a double standard with STDs, saying it wasn't
so bad when writing for women, and talking about how the new laws would put
men in jail lying about them (a good reason to disclose them up front).
> > >> One night she passed by me and puckered her lips and blew me a loud
kiss
> > >> in front of some other coworkers, then said something like "hey
> > >> beautiful/sexy."
> >
> > Guys do this sorta stuff to me all the time,
>
> Do they pronounce the slash character?
She is trying to subcommunicate that she thinks she's pretty.
Of course, if she's that pretty, then the beauty premium is an unfair bias
in her favor that you don't see her trying to stop.
That means she's unethical, but if she's pretty, she'd be useful sexually.
> > and it almost never bothers me.
> > In the rare instances when it does, I find that a firm statement such as
"cut it
> > out" said in a non-joking manner usually does the trick.
>
> That is one reason why (technically adequate) sexbots
> will be more popular than women someday.
Inflatable dolls?
> > >> For a while she had been ignoring me and I figured the
> > >> situation had gone away but after this it became clear that if I
didn't
> > >> take action I would continue to suffer under her power.
> >
> > huh?
> > What power does she have over you?
>
> The power to change his emotional state in ways he finds
> unpleasant.
Hostile environment.
> It's like shouting a racial slur at someone. Different people
> will find it bothersome to different degrees. Some racial
> slurs would not make any sense directed at me, so I probably
> would not react as viscerally and automatically as a member
> of the targeted victim group.
Animals?
> > When a guy I aint interested in blows me a kiss,
> > I don't feel that he has any "power" over me.
>
> I don't understand why you are trying to process someone
> else's emotions in terms of your own.
The issue is what a reasonable worker would feel, as set by a jury in each
specific case.
> > I really dont get ya here.
>
> I don't really get why those Muslim dudes are chopping > people's heads
off. I can list some possible reasons,
> but I can't relate to the actual emotions of the guy
> who uses the knife.
Well I think it has to do with them believing that we are helping Israel
kill their "brothers" and I don't think they liked that we invaded Iraq.
> Different people have some different emotions.
That they do. Hence the "reasonable person" standard.
> > >> She clearly had control
> > >> over me- she could insult
> > >> me and toy with me however she pleased, maybe
> > >> because she figured as a woman she could get away with it.
>
> In general she can.
Definitely.
> > If she's handling it well after the ya prematurely dragged supervisors
into
> > whole thing, then my guess is she prolly would have handled it well if
you'd
> > simply asked her to cut it out. I say prematurely dragged supervisors
into the
> > whole thing, cuz you never even told her that her sexual advances were
> > unwelcome.
>
> Either way, the burden of proof is always on the man.
A recent SCOTUS decision lightened the load for men a bit, but you are right
pretty much.
> > When men and women (and currently I think it's mostly women) misuse
sexual
> > harassment laws, they make it difficult for people to flirt, interact
and get to
> > know each other in a natural setting, such as the workplace.
>
> I guess we'll just have to live with an increase in
> worker productivity.
>
> Nothing like a heavy dose of FUD to get the workers back
> to their jobs.
'tis true. I'm assuming FUD was used in a relevant context, since I don't
know what the acronym means.
> > I think it's a
> > shame that so many people will file a complaint without even telling the
person
> > in question that their behavior makes 'em uncomfortable.
>
> How is this a shame? The aggressor can easily ask "the person in
> question" whether his/her advances are welcome.
>
> It's only a shame if whoever has authority to regulate mating
> rituals fails to clearly spell out the rules of engagement
> for everybody in advance and make sure everybody understands
> the rules.
That would make it impossible to write as they go along, so you won't see
that any time soon.
Ray Gordon
I'd ask them to lunch.
What's the problem? Take it outside the office!
Asking someone to lunch surely isn't harassment, and consent to having lunch
should be considered consent to being "flirted" with.
Anyone got a better idea?
--
"I ain't gonna play Sun City" and the world's best chessplayers should not
play Libya, which banned the Israeli players from competing. Shame on the
Americans who went!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers
http://www.cybersheet.com/6/ubb.x
The Seduction Library Forum
"The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:cac1ad88.04062...@posting.google.com...
JJT
>That means she's unethical, but if she's pretty, she'd be useful sexually.
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) wishing death on a child :
>>Path: news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news
>>Cc: cave...@nni.com
>>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:58:08 -0400
>>Subject: Ray Takes FULL RESPONSIBLITY For The Michelle Mistake
>>Message-ID: <20000628.075839.-285523.10.The...@juno.com>
>>X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11
>>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-3,6-9,17-18,20-21,29-30,40-41,48-49,61-62,71-72,84-85,94-95,105-106,
>>115-116,126-127,133-134,154-155,164-165,178-179,187-188,196-199,201-202,206-207,212-213,
>>215-216,219-220,222-226,228-231,237-238,241-246,249-250,257-258,264-265,274-275,289-290,293-300
>>X-Juno-Att: 0
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Type: text/plain
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>From: The Seduction Library <the______seductio...@juno.com>
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>>Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
>>Newsgroups: alt.romance
>>Lines: 307
>>Xref: news alt.romance:246369
>>WARNING: If Oedipus, Krusty or Tusky respond to this message in any way,
>>I will return to ASF immediately. If they want me off that newsgroup
>>they can stay the hell out of my threads.
>>Read up. I post this not for myself, because I don't care what people
>>think of me. I post this for my METHOD, because it's being destroyed by
>>attacks on its creator.
>>I am going to clear the record on a few things here:
>>1. I DID wish death on Michelle's daughter Cierra. I did so in an
>>attempt to snap her back to reality after she had used others' defamation
>>of me as leverage to get me to want her. Why did I "hurt" her? I DID
>>NOT TALK TO HER. That's correct: my crime with Michelle was not falling
>>back in love with her after she had fallen in love with me for four
>>months, IMing me constantly, E-mailing me constantly, BEGGING me to love
>>her the way I "loved" "Dominique" (these two are in quotes because I
>>neither loved her nor necessarily knew her).
>>2. Wishing death on someone is not a crime. The words were spoken in
>>anger, after MONTHS of provocation
- Proof of Gordon Roy Parker stating women deserve to be raped & murdered :
>>From: r____a__...@juno.com (Outfoxing The Foxes)
>>Subject: Re: Need A Piece Of Advice
>>Date: 1998/11/02
>>Message-ID: <19981102.144604.2648...@juno.com>
>>Organization: mail...@nym.alias.net
>>Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
>>X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-1,3-5,10-14,23-29,32-45,47-50,55-58,60-61,74-77,
>>79-87,95-97,99-102,105-112,121-122,130-131,138-139,146-147,
>>156-157,160-161,163-164,181-182,196-197,199
>>Newsgroups: alt.romance
>>Look at the way women treat "losers" and you will see
>>why they wind up beaten, murdered, raped, robbed, disrespected, and
>>oppressed. It is because women DESERVE it. The ones who harmed me
>>should thank their lucky stars that I didn't react like a primate and
>>just dump them six feet underground. Unfortunately, premeditated murder
>>would ruin this ethical thing I have going for me, although on a primal
>>level it is quite appealing.
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon) on 9/11 :
"There was no significant loss of life in those towers. Not
a one."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"This attack happened in my HOMETOWN, a hometown I do not
live in or work in because of illegal behavior. I hope those
who swiped my ability to live there enjoy the message they got from GOD
today.........."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
"In that building existed little more than a bunch of companies
which hire "office whores" and the like. I have no sympathy for
employment discriminators, and if someone had to die in this attack, I
couldn't think of a better group of people for the terrorists to pick."
- Gordon Roy Parker (aka Ray Gordon), September 11, 2001
The Danimal
> > age of sexbots?
>
> Hey, I'm all for your golden age of sexbots. But then again, even
> assuming that they become technologically feasible, good luck getting
> them past the feminists.
Feminists don't seem to have impeded the Internet-powered
explosion in porn. Porn is vastly more available today than
it was 20 years ago.
Sexbots will be a particular technology along a continuum of
artificial reality technologies. Some of those technologies
will be virtual, and thus very difficult to regulate.
> It has become increasingly apparent to me
> that many feminists are not really concerned about improving the lot
> of women, but are simply motivated by a hatred of men, and a desire to
> see men unhappy.
Perhaps. But I think feminists care more about having something
else wash the dishes, scrub the toilets, etc. Not to mention
that fact that feminists haven't exactly rejected the concept
of sex toys.
Domestic-service robots will probably become practical and
indispensible before sexbots. Feminists will be the early
adopters, just as they have embraced every other effective
domestic labor-saving tool (washing machines, etc.).
Once everybody has robots and won't give up theirs, it's going
to be more difficult (not to mention hypocritical) to regulate
particular uses of robots.
Notice the difficulty in regulating actually dangerous technologies
when they become popular. An example is the automobile. Consider
the drivers with multiple DUIs who are, somehow, still driving.
Even when the offenders are actively dangerous to society, they
can still get a break if they piggyback on a technology that most
people consider indispensible.
I'm guessing sexbots won't be more dangerous than domestic service
robots in general. Sexbots will probably produce a net increase
in safety, by eliminating such dangers of real sex as the spread
of sexually transmitted diseases, physical violence between
human relationship partners, etc.
-- the Danimal
Trainspotter
> >
> > Hey, I'm all for your golden age of sexbots. But then again, even
> > assuming that they become technologically feasible, good luck getting
> > them past the feminists.
>
> Feminists don't seem to have impeded the Internet-powered
> explosion in porn. Porn is vastly more available today than
> it was 20 years ago.
>
> Sexbots will be a particular technology along a continuum of
> artificial reality technologies. Some of those technologies
> will be virtual, and thus very difficult to regulate.
In one sense, sexbots would indeed simply be a particular technology
along a continuum of technologies. But in another sense, there would
be a difference in degree that would likely be sufficient to make a
difference in kind.
The whole point of female sexbots, presumably, is to have robots that
fool the human senses and pass as human. The idea that feminists (or
other people, for that matter) are necessarily going to treat this as
just another piece of technology - like a toaster oven or a widespread
T.V. - strikes me as wishful thinking.
If the robot can elicit all the right urges and emotions in the
owner...why wouldn't it also be *real* enough to elicit powerful
responses from others? It seems that you are trying to isolate
emotional impact in a rather arbitrary (and convenient) fashion.
Obviously, this is all incredibly hypothetical, as the robots don't
even exist. But when and if they do appear, they would likely elicit a
whole range of human emotions. Isn't that the very point of their
creation? Or at least an immediate byproduct of the point?
>
> > It has become increasingly apparent to me
> > that many feminists are not really concerned about improving the lot
> > of women, but are simply motivated by a hatred of men, and a desire to
> > see men unhappy.
>
> Perhaps. But I think feminists care more about having something
> else wash the dishes, scrub the toilets, etc. Not to mention
> that fact that feminists haven't exactly rejected the concept
> of sex toys.
That would probably be the best way of "selling" sexbots to the
public...market them to women and feminists in particular. The
feminists are so incredibly selfish that they can only be convinced
that something is *good* (or even acceptable) if it benefits them
directly. But the idea that something may actually be making someone
else happy? Outrage!!!! They are far worse than the Puritans on that
score.
But even if you sold it to them, there would still be conflict from
various quarters. A lot of people will have a lot of axes to grind on
this particular issue.
>
> Domestic-service robots will probably become practical and
> indispensible before sexbots. Feminists will be the early
> adopters, just as they have embraced every other effective
> domestic labor-saving tool (washing machines, etc.).
>
> Once everybody has robots and won't give up theirs, it's going
> to be more difficult (not to mention hypocritical) to regulate
> particular uses of robots.
Probably true. But again, I think it is naive to lump all of these
purposes together as just *practical* technologies or labor saving
devices. There is a certain line that, when crossed, will likely have
serious moral, philosophical, emotional and spiritual implications in
the minds of many people.
And the whole *point* of this particular technology would be to cross
a very serious line...the line where the machine no longer appears as
a machine.
> Notice the difficulty in regulating actually dangerous technologies
> when they become popular. An example is the automobile. Consider
> the drivers with multiple DUIs who are, somehow, still driving.
> Even when the offenders are actively dangerous to society, they
> can still get a break if they piggyback on a technology that most
> people consider indispensible.
Sure. But again, that's really not the argument. The point is that
sexbots with a true ability to appear human would tend to open moral,
emotional and philosophical issues in the eyes of many. Again, as
technologies go, sexbots would be a difference in degree such as to be
a difference in kind.
Just as one example amongst many: the whole idea (presumably) is to
have robots that appear genuinely human. This will lead to, for
example, the male being able to satisfy his sexual and romantic needs
without resort to actual humans. The basic idea is that the sexbot
will be able to elicit all of the *right* urges and emotions in him.
But if this is the case, why wouldn't there also be the risk (and I
would say the likelihood) of this same sexbot eliciting normal human
emotions in OTHERS? Jealousy, sympathy, hatred, resentment, love,
caring, etc.?
How is it reasonable to assume that the sexbot will only elicit the
*right* urges and emotions of the owner, but somehow the rest of
society will be indifferent to the sexbot and just view it as a great
toaster or labor saving device?
That seems like wishful thinking.
Again, I'm not saying that I know how it will all turn out...assuming
these sexbots ever hit the market in the first place. But I would
submit that analogies based on those sexbots being *just another
technology* don't necessarily seem very convincing. The whole point of
the technology is to cross a certain barrier...where the machine no
longer appears as a machine. Once that happens, we've opened one heck
of a can of worms.
>
> I'm guessing sexbots won't be more dangerous than domestic service
> robots in general. Sexbots will probably produce a net increase
> in safety, by eliminating such dangers of real sex as the spread
> of sexually transmitted diseases, physical violence between
> human relationship partners, etc.
Very possibly. But the same can be said of masturbation. My point is
merely that once you reach a point where a machine is no longer *seen*
as a machine, things are going to get complicated. At that point, we
aren't simply talking about a really great toaster oven anymore (and
yes, that is indeed something of a metaphor, in case you were
wondering lol).
Sharon B
(Trainspotter) wrote in
<25414bb1.04062...@posting.google.com>:
>That would probably be the best way of "selling" sexbots to the
>public...market them to women and feminists in particular. The
>feminists are so incredibly selfish that they can only be convinced
>that something is *good* (or even acceptable) if it benefits them
>directly. But the idea that something may actually be making someone
>else happy? Outrage!!!! They are far worse than the Puritans on that
>score.
<raises eyebrows>
Since everyone seems to have a different definition, how are *you*
defining "feminist"?
I think I've spotted the reason why a self-professed pickup artist
lounge lizard like yourself had to come to soc.singles to ask for
advice on how to successfully pick up women *out*side the bar venue.
GoddessBaybee
huh?
There is nothing "unnatural" aboot attractive people (or to use your term "eye
candy"). Also, attractive people are often qualified for the job, so excluding
attractive people from the workplace would not only be discriminatory, it also
wouldn't make good business sense.
Baybee
GoddessBaybee
>> Oh, sorry. Not sure what happened there. Had a Danimal moment. lol
>
>I feel your pain.
>
>How did it feel to be sexually repulsive to GoddessBaybee for
>a moment? Did you find yourself yearning for the future golden
>age of sexbots?
um...danimal,
what are ya talking aboot?
this is NOT the first time you've rejected guys on my behalf,
and this little habit of yours seems quite weird.
i've never expressed 'sexual revulsion' toward Trainspotter.
For one thing, I've never seen him, and most importantly, i'm engaged so i aint
on the market.
Baybee
The Danimal
> In article <cac1ad88.04062...@posting.google.com>, The Danimal
> says...
> >
> >trainsp...@hotmail.com (Trainspotter) wrote in message
>
> >> Oh, sorry. Not sure what happened there. Had a Danimal moment. lol
> >
> >I feel your pain.
> >
> >How did it feel to be sexually repulsive to GoddessBaybee for
> >a moment? Did you find yourself yearning for the future golden
> >age of sexbots?
>
> um...danimal,
> what are ya talking aboot?
You helpfully quoted enough of the context to answer your
own question: I was talking about Trainspotter's Danimal moment.
Because I am the Danimal, I have some insight into what a
Danimal moment is like.
I thought that would be pretty clear thanks to the power of
editing, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. Do you have some
severe limitation of short-term memory that prevents you from
seeing that a sentence which follows another sentence can
extend the thoughts behind the first sentence?
If I were a good comedy writer, I would know how to explain
just enough of a joke to make it understandable and yet still
be funny. But I'm not, so I have to live with confusing
people who don't think like I do. (I was tempted to omit the
"like I do" part, but I'm feeling generous today.)
> this is NOT the first time you've rejected guys on my behalf,
> and this little habit of yours seems quite weird.
What, could you actually see yourself having sex with a man
who writes like I do?
Or does it annoy you that I would deprive you of some of the
pleasure you get from rejecting men, by rejecting them for
you? lol.
> i've never expressed 'sexual revulsion' toward Trainspotter.
Is it within your intellectual capacity to imagine that when
Trainspotter wrote "Danimal moment. lol" he was using a figure
of speech for humorous effect?
What exactly does "lol" mean to you?
And when I played along with Trainspotter's gag by drawing
some inferences from it, can you imagine my inferences might
not be sober assertions about the detailed state of reality
with Sobolewskian certainty?
> For one thing, I've never seen him, and most importantly,
> i'm engaged so i aint on the market.
A good percentage of rejections are due to women not being on
the market, so I'm not sure what you are driving at there.
You seem to be trying to equate revulsion with rejection.
A sustained feeling of revulsion can certainly be grounds
for rejecting someone, but revulsion is neither necessary
nor sufficient for rejection. Put on your thinking cap:
1. Not necessary: you can reject someone even if you find
him attractive, for any number of reasons (you're already
taken, he doesn't fit into your life plans, etc.). I'm not
saying you personally have done this or would do this,
because I don't know your life history, but others have
walked away from partners or potential partners they found
attractive enough to enjoy having (or keep having) sex with.
2. Not sufficient: you can find someone sexually repulsive
for a moment, then find him sexually attractive at other times,
and act on that attraction. Few people are turned on by another
person 100% of the time 24/7/365. The fact that we have concepts
of "date rape" and "marital rape" shows that even when a woman
finds a man sexually attractive under certain conditions, at
other times she may find sex with him to be unappealing,
bothersome, or even horrifying.
-- the Danimal
GoddessBaybee
>
>GoddessBaybee <goddes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<cbnuc...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In article <cac1ad88.04062...@posting.google.com>, The Danimal
>> says...
>> >
>> >trainsp...@hotmail.com (Trainspotter) wrote in message
>>
>> >> Oh, sorry. Not sure what happened there. Had a Danimal moment. lol
>> >
>> >I feel your pain.
>> >
>> >How did it feel to be sexually repulsive to GoddessBaybee for
>> >a moment? Did you find yourself yearning for the future golden
>> >age of sexbots?
>>
>> um...danimal,
>> what are ya talking aboot?
>
>You helpfully quoted enough of the context to answer your
>own question: I was talking about Trainspotter's Danimal moment.
>Because I am the Danimal, I have some insight into what a
>Danimal moment is like.
I get it.
It's moderately funny I suppose, but it aint all that clear, cuz Trainspotter's
"Danimal moment" wasn't about lack of sexual appeal.
um...spot the irony.
Allow me to cut and paste your own words here...
'Do you have some severe limitation of short-term memory?'
Danimal, if you look up to the top of this post, you'll see that you wrote
"sexually repulsive" which does imply revulsion.
Baybee
Trainspotter
> On 27 Jun 2004 15:51:51 -0700, trainsp...@hotmail.com
>
> <raises eyebrows>
> Since everyone seems to have a different definition, how are *you*
> defining "feminist"?
Trolling again, I see. Can't resist following my posts?
Your obsessive cyber stalking speaks volumes of the bizarro world in
which you live. As a first step towards basic decency, perhaps you
could try to gain some control over your compulsive trolling.
>
> I think I've spotted the reason why a self-professed pickup artist
> lounge lizard like yourself had to come to soc.singles to ask for
> advice on how to successfully pick up women *out*side the bar venue.
I am still interested in information on ways to make approaches
outside of bars.
However, I most assuredly am not concerned about what *you* think of
the subject.
Given the astonishing levels of hypocrisy, dishonesty, incompetence
and just general nastiness that you continually demonstrate...who
cares what you think?
Sharon B
(Trainspotter) wrote in
<25414bb1.04062...@posting.google.com>:
>Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message news:<lkuud0hprlm3ajaqn...@4ax.com>...
>> On 27 Jun 2004 15:51:51 -0700, trainsp...@hotmail.com
>
>>
>> <raises eyebrows>
>> Since everyone seems to have a different definition, how are *you*
>> defining "feminist"?
>
>Trolling again, I see.
I thought that's what *you* were doing.
>Can't resist following my posts?
Right....like you tossed that BIG piece of bait out there because you
*didn't* want someone to bite on it.
>Your obsessive cyber stalking
*snarf*
"cyber stalking"?
<laughing>
allow me to help: Poster A posts to a public forum. Poster B
replies. This is how Usenet works.
HTH
>speaks volumes of the bizarro world in
>which you live. As a first step towards basic decency, perhaps you
>could try to gain some control over your compulsive trolling.
dun wanna, besides....you first. you were the one throwing bait
around, after all.
>I am still interested in information on ways to make approaches
>outside of bars.
I'm afraid you'll not be successful without liquor or other mind
altering substances.
>Given the astonishing levels of hypocrisy, dishonesty, incompetence
>and just general nastiness that you continually demonstrate...
again, that "american women are self centered" was particularly
revealing
>who
>cares what you think?
yah I know....it completely befuzzles me, too.
The Danimal
> along a continuum of technologies. But in another sense, there would
> be a difference in degree that would likely be sufficient to make a
> difference in kind.
Of course, but so what? Artists have trying to simulate
reality ever since the days of cave paintings. It was only
a matter of time before they would realize their dream.
> The whole point of female sexbots, presumably, is to have robots that
> fool the human senses and pass as human.
Too vague. The whole point of all representative art is to
fool SOME of the senses, but people are perfectly capable
of "getting" the art even if they can see that in certain
ways it does not exactly duplicate every aspect of the real
thing. You can tell that a portrait depicts a certain person
without mistaking the portrait for the actual person.
Sometimes it is desirable to leave out some things. For example,
you would not want to watch a war movie that was TOTALLY realistic,
to the point that actual bullets flew out of the screen and wounded
you.
There are many aspects of real humans we do not want to build
into robots. There is not much point in building an EXACT
duplicate of a human anyway, because we already have humans,
with all their limitations and problems.
Sex robots aren't likely to pass for real humans because they
will have highly improbable combinations of traits. If some
stunningly attractive woman stranger approached me on the
street and started treating me like a rock star, I would
wonder what's wrong with this picture? No stunningly attractive
woman stranger has ever done that. Women who are highly
attractive behave as if they occupy a privileged position---
because they do.
> The idea that feminists (or
> other people, for that matter) are necessarily going to treat this as
> just another piece of technology - like a toaster oven or a widespread
> T.V. - strikes me as wishful thinking.
The future is notoriously hard to predict, so we have to admit
just about anything *might* happen, but the history of technology
shows humans have a remarkable capacity to adapt to things
they initially greeted with panic, astonishment, predictions of
catastrophe, etc. Things that caused a sensation at first tend
to seem humdrum after a while. Examples are too numerous to mention.
Plus the rollout isn't going to be sudden. Computer games and
movies will gradually become more immersive, and they will
feature artificial people ("synthespians") who gradually become
more realistic (or better than realistic) and thus more compelling.
People will eventually be talking to simulated computer
"friends," and from there it won't be too much of a shock to
add some tactile feedback.
On the metal side of the equation, service robots will become
indispensible for the handicapped, the elderly, the infirm,
and people who are too busy or too lazy to clean their homes.
At some point the average human could enjoy the same quality
of life that historically only platoons of human servants
could provide to a lucky few at the top.
Also consider the feminists' motives. They have an ax to
grind because men do a lot of things that create problems
for women. Such as try to have more sex with women than
women want to provide. Feminists don't like porn because
it doesn't do the whole job: men can look at any amount of
porn, and most men still want to have real sex with
real women. But sex robots might cross the satisfaction
threshold such that they actually do siphon off what
women regard as the excess amount of male horniness.
If that happens, feminists might come to regard sexbots
as a way to effectively de-sexualize men as they interact
with feminists. Men might stop judging women according to
their sexuality so much because it won't matter very much
anymore when sex of the highest quality becomes cheap.
Will there be some horrible unanticipated consequences of
robot technology? Of course. Every powerful new technology
has some horrible unanticipated consequences. Kalashnikov
designed firearms to fight Nazi invaders, and after the
Great Patriotic War he continued to refine his designs.
Today Russians are getting killed by AK-47s. <shrug>
There are car wrecks, airplane crashes, building fires,
birth defects from chemical additives, etc. Someone will
probably manage to get killed by his sexbot. Or someone
will program a sexbot to kill someone else. These events
will generate hysteria at first, until people become
inured to them just as they ignore the mayhem on the highways.
> If the robot can elicit all the right urges and emotions in the
> owner...why wouldn't it also be *real* enough to elicit powerful
> responses from others?
There are probably millions of poor people in the world who
would enjoy living in your house, but you don't let them.
Furthermore, you probably avoid taunting them about it.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Taking a dump would be an issue too, if people did it in the
wrong place. Such as on your desk at work. But if people can
properly contain their stinky habits, nobody else needs to
get offended.
When some activity becomes stigmatized, it's usually
because the people who indulge in it got sloppy.
If men start creating serious problems for other people because
of their sexbots, then it will become an issue. Who knows, it
might work out that way. But I can't really picture what the
problem would be. Other than maybe a bunch of married women
turning into "sexbot widows" the way we have "football widows"
now.
> It seems that you are trying to isolate
> emotional impact in a rather arbitrary (and convenient) fashion.
Ride a bike. You will quickly discover that motorists
see no particular need to isolate the impacts (emotional
and otherwise) of their motor vehicles.
How good or bad something is matters less than how popular
it is. If something is really popular, the people who use
it can get away with a lot, up to killing tens of thousands
of people every year, violently and horribly.
If sexbots and other artificial sex techologies remain
at the fringes of society, then it will be possible for
conservatives and feminists to stigmatize them, if they
want.
But if sexbots are effective enough to get on the
conservatives' radar, they probably won't be just
a fringe thing.
Consider that almost every serious issue for
conservatives and feminists is pretty much an unwinnable
battle, because they like to take on fundamental aspects
of human nature. They might win some skirmishes, but
they cannot wish away a billion years of evolution.
> Obviously, this is all incredibly hypothetical, as the robots don't
> even exist.
I would say merely hypothetical.
For the scenario to be "incredibly" hypothetical, it would have
to violate some known law(s) of nature. For example, the plans
to build a space elevator are almost "incredibly" hypothetical
because calculations show the elevator requires a material with
a strength-to-weight ratio quite a few times higher than any
known material. It might be possible to construct the elevator
cable out of carbon nanotubes, but the material would have to
be essentially perfect all along the 60,000+ mile length of the
cable, and it would have to stay perfect in the harsh environment
of space. Also, you can't test the elevator with progressively
taller prototypes because orbital dynamics determine where
the counterweight has to be (60,000+ miles above the Earth's
equator). Thus there is a huge barrier to getting the thing
built---a whole bunch of things have to work exactly
right on the first try.
In contrast, it's quite easy to imagine further incremental
advances along the continuum toward artificial reality (the
process began with cave art, 35,000 years ago). These
advances seem inevitable. Computer games will keep getting
better, computers will keep getting faster, progress will
continue on robots, computer speech, etc. Not even Communist
governments can block every Internet site, etc.
> But when and if they do appear, they would likely elicit a
> whole range of human emotions. Isn't that the very point of their
> creation? Or at least an immediate byproduct of the point?
The whole point of everything private industry builds is to
make a profit. Most things that create profits also create
problems, somewhere. Then it becomes a struggle between those
who pay for the problems to seek redress from those who get
the profit.
> That would probably be the best way of "selling" sexbots to the
> public...market them to women and feminists in particular. The
> feminists are so incredibly selfish that they can only be convinced
> that something is *good* (or even acceptable) if it benefits them
> directly. But the idea that something may actually be making someone
> else happy? Outrage!!!! They are far worse than the Puritans on that
> score.
You seem to be getting a bit hyperbolic here.
Aside from publishing a few crank articles in a few crank journals
to be read primarily by her small community of fellow cranks,
what impact has a feminist critic such as Catherine MacKinnon
had on the porn industry? See:
http://www.spectacle.org/1195/mack.html
Has your ability to click on a porn-site URL diminished as a
result of feminist complaints? It's hard to imagine a world
where porn (such as it exists today) could be much more available.
Also note that when feminists object to porn, they object not
just to the porn itself, but to HOW IT IS MADE. That is, feminists
dislike the process whereby REAL WOMEN are photographed in ways
the feminists consider "degrading."
Feminists of the MacKinnon school might resent sexbots
BECAUSE the new technology will render obsolete half of their
argument against porn. Think of all those feminist journal
articles that would instantly turn into relics. If feminists
abandon their pretense of protecting women and oppose sexbots
anyway, that would be evidence in favor of your cynical
view that these feminists are primarily trying to regulate
male thought.
But I think most people spend more time thinking about themselves
than they spend thinking about others. To the extent that people
think about others, it's usually about the impact those others
have on them.
> But even if you sold it to them, there would still be conflict from
> various quarters. A lot of people will have a lot of axes to grind on
> this particular issue.
Yes. But to outlaw a popular activity, opponents must put
aside their differences.
Prohibition failed in part because Prohibitionists did not
stay focused. Once they rammed through their amendment,
their struggle was really only beginning. But most of them
soon lost interest during the maintenance phase.
So many people seem to focus on getting a law passed, as
if the game is over at that point. Pass the law, go home,
live happily ever after.
> Probably true. But again, I think it is naive to lump all of these
> purposes together as just *practical* technologies or labor saving
> devices. There is a certain line that, when crossed, will likely have
> serious moral, philosophical, emotional and spiritual implications in
> the minds of many people.
I don't think there is "a certain line." Different people will
react in different ways at different times in the process.
If you could build a time machine and send 2004 technology back
to the year 1750, that would undoubtedly have serious moral,
philosophical, emotional and spiritual implications in the
minds of many people. Basically, modern technology would make
a mockery out of their whole way of life.
But most of us living in the year 2004 are fairly
comfortable with most of what we have now, because part of
it was already around when we were born, and we had years to
get used to the rest as it gradually developed.
Movies have gotten steadily more realistic, in certain ways.
Where is the "certain line" that will cause "many people" to
say, "Hey, you've gone too far"?
We have already seen how last year's mind-blowing movie
special effect becomes ho-hum when this year's movies
use the same effect.
Remember how impressive the dinosaurs looked in the first
Jurassic Park? Now that doesn't excite anybody. Instead
people talk about how few minutes of animation were actually
in that film, and experts in the field like to point out
what are now some of the obvious flaws in the earlier
techniques.
> And the whole *point* of this particular technology would be to cross
> a very serious line...the line where the machine no longer appears as
> a machine.
Only in certain ways. The improbable combination of
humanlike traits would itself be obviously nonhuman.
Does any real woman who looks stunningly hot treat me like
a rock star? No. Would I have that experience with hundreds
of different but all stunningly hot women every year? A
hundred times no.
The emotional brain is the stupid part. That's what
entertainment technology targets. You can enjoy watching
a movie, and respond emotionally to it with real emotions,
even while your conscious mind "knows" it is all a fake.
> > Notice the difficulty in regulating actually dangerous technologies
> > when they become popular. An example is the automobile. Consider
> > the drivers with multiple DUIs who are, somehow, still driving.
> > Even when the offenders are actively dangerous to society, they
> > can still get a break if they piggyback on a technology that most
> > people consider indispensible.
>
> Sure. But again, that's really not the argument. The point is that
> sexbots with a true ability to appear human would tend to open moral,
> emotional and philosophical issues in the eyes of many. Again, as
> technologies go, sexbots would be a difference in degree such as to be
> a difference in kind.
History is full of examples where people adapted to differences
in kind.
Some writers argue that the impact of the Internet is less
than the impact of early 20th-century technologies such as
radio, automobiles, and airplanes were in their time. When
you consider how much differently the average person lived
before and after, it's hard to think of any technology today
that is having the same impact.
Before we had the Internet, the average person's life in
the U.S. revolved around his or her automobile. That is
still true. I haven't seen the Internet drastically
transform lives and communities the way cars did.
In some ways, the rate of change has slowed down. Physical
transportation, for example, has not improved much during
my life. Travel times have not changed in decades. The last
real advance was the introduction of subsonic passenger jets.
There has been an expansion in jet travel, but the speed
has not changed. Supersonic airliners just aren't practical.
Even military jets aren't going any faster. All the relevant
speed records were set about 40 years ago.
> Just as one example amongst many: the whole idea (presumably) is to
> have robots that appear genuinely human.
No, to appear the way humans genuinely want them to appear.
We already have genuine humans. Most of them aren't much
to look at. Those who are, don't look much at me.
> This will lead to, for
> example, the male being able to satisfy
some of
> his sexual and romantic needs
> without resort to actual humans. The basic idea is that the sexbot
> will be able to elicit all of the *right* urges and emotions in him.
Sure, but not even a human satisfies EVERY sexual and romantic
need.
The fact that people get married doesn't stop them from finding
other humans attractive. And acting on it.
Similarly, the fact that men will have sexbots need not completely
eliminate their desires for real women, on occasion. Maybe sexbots
will seem too perfect, and men will desire real imperfect women
from time to time. Sort of like a wealthy person vacationing
in a slum.
Even though cars have replaced horses for serious transportation
for most people, there are still a lot of horses. Lots of people
keep horses around *despite* their impracticality.
Modern transportation means you don't need to run, but lots of
people still insist on running. Maybe when sexbots have rendered
real sex pointless, some people will keep doing it. I don't know.
I don't think everybody will go back to horses.
> But if this is the case, why wouldn't there also be the risk (and I
> would say the likelihood) of this same sexbot eliciting normal human
> emotions in OTHERS? Jealousy, sympathy, hatred, resentment, love,
> caring, etc.?
Jealousy results from the inefficient market, which in turn results
from the uniqueness of humans, and their diversity. That is, there
are only a few hot chicks, so it often happens when one guy gets
a hot chick that lots of other guys want her too.
But sex robots will be copyable, just like any machine. If someone
likes your sexbot, perhaps in part because of ways you have
customized her, you can easily give him a copy of your files,
just like people share their MP3's.
If there was only one recording of a song, fans of the song might
fight over it. But if every fan can have their own copy, there is
nothing to be jealous about.
Recorded music has cut seriously into opportunities for musicians
to make money by playing live music. There used to be a piano in
every roadhouse. But the average musician was not very good, and
juke boxes easily blew most of them away.
> How is it reasonable to assume that the sexbot will only elicit the
> *right* urges and emotions of the owner, but somehow the rest of
> society will be indifferent to the sexbot and just view it as a great
> toaster or labor saving device?
Not necessary. You don't have to like the way an open-pit
copper mine looks for the mine to be there. Only if there is
an enormous amount of opposition could people stop the mine
from being dug.
Is it reasonable to assume sexbots will elicit opposition
that is even stronger than their appeal to people who like
them? I don't see how. It would be like trying to outlaw
consensual sex.
> That seems like wishful thinking.
There are probably people who object to almost anything you can
name. Only rarely do the objections get strong enough to
motivate something like the War on Drugs. Which isn't even
being won, as you can see.
The War on Drugs is possible, maybe inevitable, because a
sizable percentage of drug users screw themselves up and
cause problems for people around them.
Sexbots, on the other hand, are a self-limiting vice. Even
if a man has a harem of real women, he probably can't sustainably
have sex more than about four times per day. In the long run he
might get tired of having sex with beautiful women and slow down
to a few times per week, even if the supply is unlimited.
It's not like a drug addict who can stay continuously strung
out.
It's possible sexbots will make the average man a better citizen:
more productive, more relaxed, less violent, less angry. How many
rock stars go around picking fights? OK, rappers do, but that's
the image they try to sell, to a fan base consisting largely of
frustrated young men.
> Again, I'm not saying that I know how it will all turn out...assuming
> these sexbots ever hit the market in the first place.
Obviously it depends on more variables than we can imagine,
so history will just have to play itself out. I'm just
extrapolating from present trends.
> But I would
> submit that analogies based on those sexbots being *just another
> technology* don't necessarily seem very convincing.
Sure, to someone who never reads history. It's useful to go
back and read the initial reactions of people who were seeing
various things for the first time. To them it seemed each of
those things was fundamentally unlike previous inventions.
Today things like railroad trains do not seem particularly
remarkable, but when they first appeared the shock was
incredible. For countless generations humans had never traveled
much beyond walking speed, and suddenly it became possible to
travel hundreds of miles in just one day. Notice how that
last phrase isn't anything to you and me, but in the year
1825 "hundreds of miles in just one day" would have elicited
gasps of astonishment.
People seriously wondered if the human heart could continue
beating at such speeds.
> The whole point of
> the technology is to cross a certain barrier...where the machine no
> longer appears as a machine. Once that happens, we've opened one heck
> of a can of worms.
The "barrier" exists in your mind, just as 20 miles per hour
once seemed like a "barrier" to people who traveled by foot or
horse.
100 years from now the "barrier" will probably be elsewhere.
Obviously robots are going to change a lot. But lots of things
have changed a lot.
When automobiles first started getting popular, preachers warned
of the dangers that would follow when young men and women gained
the ability to drive off together without chaperones.
The preachers were right on the money. But that did not stop
anybody from getting a car. In fact sin promoted cars.
> > I'm guessing sexbots won't be more dangerous than domestic service
> > robots in general. Sexbots will probably produce a net increase
> > in safety, by eliminating such dangers of real sex as the spread
> > of sexually transmitted diseases, physical violence between
> > human relationship partners, etc.
>
> Very possibly. But the same can be said of masturbation.
No, because masturbation does not provide the same degree
of satisfaction as sex with a partner, so most people only
masturbate when a suitable partner is not available.
Riding motorcycles, playing bingo, watching TV, and so on
could also be considered ways to reduce the spread of
sexually transmitted disease by your weak argument, but
few people are that dumb because we all know those other
fun things do not relieve the need for sex. People who ride
motorcycles, or beat off occasionally, will still have real
sex when they can.
Sex robots would duplicate more of the enjoyable sensory
aspects of sex with a suitable human partner, and might
thus begin to actually displace some of the more marginal
opportunities to have sex with humans. It would then be
possible to give up the dangers of diseases without necessarily
giving up the satisfaction.
> My point is
> merely that once you reach a point where a machine is no longer *seen*
> as a machine, things are going to get complicated. At that point, we
> aren't simply talking about a really great toaster oven anymore (and
> yes, that is indeed something of a metaphor, in case you were
> wondering lol).
Sure, at first, but the "wow" factor quickly wears off.
I saw some interview with a black guy who lived in China.
He said most of the Chinese people he saw had never seen
a black man. When he went out in public, they would crowd
around him and rub his skin, to see if the color would rub
off.
Obviously most Chinese people would get over that sort of
amazement quickly enough if black people became an ordinary
sight for them.
-- the Danimal
Trainspotter
> >> Since everyone seems to have a different definition, how are *you*
> >> defining "feminist"?
> >
> >Trolling again, I see.
>
> I thought that's what *you* were doing.
Classic Sharon B hypocrisy: troll into a conversation, and then accuse
the other of trolling.
>
> >Can't resist following my posts?
>
> Right....like you tossed that BIG piece of bait out there because you
> *didn't* want someone to bite on it.
Someone who can handle rational discussion, not a troll.
>
> >Your obsessive cyber stalking
>
> *snarf*
> "cyber stalking"?
> <laughing>
>
> allow me to help: Poster A posts to a public forum. Poster B
> replies. This is how Usenet works.
And when someone compulsively follows another poster around and starts
flame wars...it's called trolling or cyber stalking.
Perhaps you could get help for your compulsion?
>
> HTH
>
> >speaks volumes of the bizarro world in
> >which you live. As a first step towards basic decency, perhaps you
> >could try to gain some control over your compulsive trolling.
>
> dun wanna, besides....you first. you were the one throwing bait
> around, after all.
hahaha Again...unbelievable. You are so far around the bend that you
can't even see the bend anymore.
Like I've always said: if Sharon accuses someone of something, it
means that she herself is doing it.
>
> >I am still interested in information on ways to make approaches
> >outside of bars.
>
> I'm afraid you'll not be successful without liquor or other mind
> altering substances.
Here we go into childish flames...but when I respond "Better than
being a shut in", you'll cry in righteous indignation.
>
> >Given the astonishing levels of hypocrisy, dishonesty, incompetence
> >and just general nastiness that you continually demonstrate...
>
> again, that "american women are self centered" was particularly
> revealing
It was meant to be.
Sharon B
(Trainspotter) wrote in
<25414bb1.04062...@posting.google.com>:
>Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message
>
>> >> <raises eyebrows>
>> >> Since everyone seems to have a different definition, how are *you*
>> >> defining "feminist"?
>> >
>> >Trolling again, I see.
>>
>> I thought that's what *you* were doing.
>
>Classic Sharon B hypocrisy: troll into a conversation, and then accuse
>the other of trolling.
OIC, then your claims about American women are something you actually
believe....so you're just a stupid bigot, not a troll.
My mistake for crediting your character with more than is deserved.
>> >Can't resist following my posts?
>>
>> Right....like you tossed that BIG piece of bait out there because you
>> *didn't* want someone to bite on it.
>
>Someone who can handle rational discussion, not a troll.
It's perfectly rational to be a bigot, of course.
<um....that was sarcasm>
[...]
>> allow me to help: Poster A posts to a public forum. Poster B
>> replies. This is how Usenet works.
>
>And when someone compulsively follows another poster around and starts
>flame wars...it's called trolling or cyber stalking.
"follows another poster around"?
Are you completely stupid?
Your over inflated ego aside, I'm sitting in here in soc.singles
minding my own business when you burst in and start calling me names,
fool.
You're too funny. You crosspost to a ng full of American women--a ng
you don't even sub to, IIRC, and start calling these women selfish and
other assorted names, then call them compulsive cyber stalkers who are
following you around when they reply to your bigoted remarks.
[...]
>> again, that "american women are self centered" was particularly
>> revealing
>
>It was meant to be.
I doona thin' it revealed what you think it did.
Dr Chaos
> {sexbots are the future}.
So Dan, do you think that very realistic baby-bots will fulfill the
desire of many young women to spawn mewling dependents?
what a win-win scenario.
Trainspotter
> > In one sense, sexbots would indeed simply be a particular technology
> > along a continuum of technologies. But in another sense, there would
> > be a difference in degree that would likely be sufficient to make a
> > difference in kind.
>
> Of course, but so what? Artists have trying to simulate
> reality ever since the days of cave paintings. It was only
> a matter of time before they would realize their dream.
The "so what" is pretty signficant. The whole idea of realistic
sexbots would be that the machine no longer *appears* to be a machine.
Once that threshold is crossed, a lot of issues are raised.
>
> > The whole point of female sexbots, presumably, is to have robots that
> > fool the human senses and pass as human.
>
> Too vague. The whole point of all representative art is to
> fool SOME of the senses, but people are perfectly capable
> of "getting" the art even if they can see that in certain
> ways it does not exactly duplicate every aspect of the real
> thing. You can tell that a portrait depicts a certain person
> without mistaking the portrait for the actual person.
Danimal...I get all of that. I thought the idea was that the sexbot
would, to the human senses, appear to be human.
Or are you saying that somehow they will only be *good* enough to get
close, but not *good* enough to appear genuine?
Drawing lines like that seems to be rather arbitrary.
>
> Sometimes it is desirable to leave out some things. For example,
> you would not want to watch a war movie that was TOTALLY realistic,
> to the point that actual bullets flew out of the screen and wounded
> you.
>
> There are many aspects of real humans we do not want to build
> into robots. There is not much point in building an EXACT
> duplicate of a human anyway, because we already have humans,
> with all their limitations and problems.
I thought it would be an *exact duplicate* of a guy's dream
woman...not just any woman.
Sure, we already have humans. But hotties are in short supply. I
thought the idea was to build machines that appeared as hotties,
machines that would trick the human senses into *seeing* the machine
as human.
I don't see how you can arbitrarily draw lines, suggesting that
technology will advance to the point where we are "almost" there, but
not quite.
>
> Sex robots aren't likely to pass for real humans because they
> will have highly improbable combinations of traits. If some
> stunningly attractive woman stranger approached me on the
> street and started treating me like a rock star, I would
> wonder what's wrong with this picture? No stunningly attractive
> woman stranger has ever done that. Women who are highly
> attractive behave as if they occupy a privileged position---
> because they do.
I find this highly unpersuasive. Either the sexbot appears *real*
enough, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Either the normal
male can *love* it, or he can't.
And if it appears *real* enough to elicit powerful human
emotions...then you can't easily ignore the possibility that there
will be emotions elicited that you haven't counted on....like hatred,
resentment, jealously, sympathy, etc.
Again, I thought the whole point was to pass as human, and to be able
to elicit emotional responses in males.
If the sexbot can't do that, then who cares? It's just a fancy blow up
doll. But if it CAN do that, then how can we assume that it will only
elicit certain human emotions in the guy, but leave the rest of
society indifferent to it?
>
> > If the robot can elicit all the right urges and emotions in the
> > owner...why wouldn't it also be *real* enough to elicit powerful
> > responses from others?
>
> There are probably millions of poor people in the world who
> would enjoy living in your house, but you don't let them.
> Furthermore, you probably avoid taunting them about it.
> Out of sight, out of mind.
I suppose if the owners keep their robots entirely out of public view,
then that would be one thing. But wouldn't guys want to go out and do
things with their "dates", "girlfriends", or "wives"? How would that
qualify as an "out of sight, out of mind" situation?
In any event, there is really no need to answer the rest of your post
line by line. It's basically giving me a history lesson that I don't
require. I've already heard all of the generic arguments that you
used.
You did a fairly good job of showing how new technologies become
accepted. Again, I'm already aware of all of that. My point was simply
that those old arguments may not work when a certain line is crossed -
that line being when the machine genuinely appears to be human.
Or then again...maybe even after that line is crossed, the technology
will gain acceptance in the traditional ways. I simply pointed out the
possibility that new rules might apply.
My best guess is that there will be some of both. I suspect that the
new technologies will be largely accepted for many of the same reasons
that technologies have been accepted in the past...and yet I don't
think people are going to be as indifferent about realistic sexbots as
they would be with a fancy toaster oven.
Darfalz smashing a toaster oven would be one thing. Darfalz savagely
beating a sexbot that *appears* human is quite another.
I wouldn't expect an onlooker to those two scenes to have the same
reaction in both cases...though of course I could be wrong.
But to me, if the entire PURPOSE of a machine is to appear as human,
and to elicit "human to human" responses from its owner...then it
seems difficult to compartmentalize and assume that it will not elicit
responses from non-owners. Those responses may be sympathy, horror,
fear, anger, jealousy, what have you.
In other words, to me it seems intellectually tenuous that only
desired responses will be elicited. Another way of putting it: if it's
*good* enough to elicit love, it would presumably be *good* enough to
elicit hate, fear, resentment, etc.
And if it's not *good* enough to elicit love...then it is pretty much
just a fancy blow up doll.
Trainspotter
>
> Your over inflated ego aside, I'm sitting in here in soc.singles
> minding my own business when you burst in and start calling me names,
> fool.
LOL You are losing what little sanity that you had. I "burst" in and
called you names?????
Are you starting to hear voices as well?
>
> You're too funny. You crosspost to a ng full of American women--a ng
> you don't even sub to, IIRC, and start calling these women selfish and
> other assorted names, then call them compulsive cyber stalkers who are
> following you around when they reply to your bigoted remarks.
LOL.
The scary thing is you probably believe your own delusions.
>
> [...]
> >> again, that "american women are self centered" was particularly
> >> revealing
> >
> >It was meant to be.
>
> I doona thin' it revealed what you think it did.
Try to control your compulsive trolling and flaming. Maybe you could
get a hobby or something?
The Danimal
> On 28 Jun 2004 18:05:00 -0700, The Danimal <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
> > {sexbots are the future}.
>
> So Dan, do you think that very realistic baby-bots will fulfill the
> desire of many young women to spawn mewling dependents?
Little girls have been given dolls to play with for
hundreds of years, so there is precedent. Even some
adult women collect dolls.
I heard somewhere that cats are popular as pets in part
because their mewling cries have a frequency spectrum
similar to the cries of human infants.
There are already rudimentary robotic cats and dogs on
the market, for those who want the sensory stimulation
without all the hair, mess, crap, piss, vomit, labor,
and veterinarian fees.
Some of the beloved Disney cartoon characters have faces
drawn with features in proportions similar to the proportions
on a human infant face. The cartoon characters stimulate
some of the same emotional responses humans are genetically
programmed to feel toward their offspring.
So there have been plenty of partly-successful attempts
to artificially stimulate the mommy impulse.
> what a win-win scenario.
Technology may be able to safisfy almost everyone with
harmless yet sufficiently stimulating fakes.
The exception might be people who by reason of mental
defect feel urges to actually inflict real pain on
real people and would not "buy" the fake experience.
-- the Danimal
Sklenge
> Dr Chaos <mbkennelS...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrnce3gtc.89p.m...@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>...
>> On 28 Jun 2004 18:05:00 -0700, The Danimal <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>>> {sexbots are the future}.
>>
>> So Dan, do you think that very realistic baby-bots will fulfill the
>> desire of many young women to spawn mewling dependents?
>
> Little girls have been given dolls to play with for
> hundreds of years, so there is precedent. Even some
> adult women collect dolls.
>
> I heard somewhere that cats are popular as pets in part
> because their mewling cries have a frequency spectrum
> similar to the cries of human infants.
>
> There are already rudimentary robotic cats and dogs on
> the market, for those who want the sensory stimulation
> without all the hair, mess, crap, piss, vomit, labor,
> and veterinarian fees.
I can't wait till these get refined. I'm not getting another pet until I can
get a 'simulant'.
GoddessBaybee
says...
>
>Dr Chaos <mbkennelS...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<slrnce3gtc.89p.m...@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>...
>> On 28 Jun 2004 18:05:00 -0700, The Danimal <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>> So Dan, do you think that very realistic baby-bots will fulfill the
>> desire of many young women to spawn mewling dependents?
>
>Little girls have been given dolls to play with for
>hundreds of years, so there is precedent.
ok, but there is a difference between 'pretend games' which are
practice for the real thing and a robotic substitution for the real thing.
<snip>
>Technology may be able to safisfy almost everyone with
>harmless yet sufficiently stimulating fakes.
>
>The exception might be people who by reason of
>mental defect feel urges to actually inflict
>real pain on real people and would not "buy" the fake experience.
um...what about the people who want to inflict real joy on real people?
Baybee
The Danimal
>
> > > In one sense, sexbots would indeed simply be a particular technology
> > > along a continuum of technologies. But in another sense, there would
> > > be a difference in degree that would likely be sufficient to make a
> > > difference in kind.
> >
> > Of course, but so what? Artists have trying to simulate
> > reality ever since the days of cave paintings. It was only
> > a matter of time before they would realize their dream.
>
> The "so what" is pretty signficant. The whole idea of realistic
> sexbots would be that the machine no longer *appears* to be a machine.
> Once that threshold is crossed, a lot of issues are raised.
People deal with issues every day. What's your point?
In any case, a sexbot would still obviously be a machine
by being too impossibly perfect, a point I have made
repeatedly. The market may even find sexbots sexier that
do not look exactly like real humans. Maybe metallic-looking
skin will be more popular, or something like that.
Making them humanlike to some degree is only a possible means
to the end of making them entertaining and satisfying companions.
The market will determine how much duplication of real women
is ideal.
> > > The whole point of female sexbots, presumably, is to have robots that
> > > fool the human senses and pass as human.
> >
> > Too vague. The whole point of all representative art is to
> > fool SOME of the senses, but people are perfectly capable
> > of "getting" the art even if they can see that in certain
> > ways it does not exactly duplicate every aspect of the real
> > thing. You can tell that a portrait depicts a certain person
> > without mistaking the portrait for the actual person.
>
> Danimal...I get all of that. I thought the idea was that the sexbot
> would, to the human senses, appear to be human.
The idea is for the SEXbot to be as SEXy as inhumanly
possible.
Real humans invariably have flaws that render them less
than maximally attractive. For example, even the most
beautiful women on Earth apply makeup, shave their bodies,
arrange their hair, etc., to bring them closer to some
aesthetic ideal which did not evolve on its own.
The robot would just always look that good. It would clearly
be unnatural. It would be *BETTER* than natural.
Women complain that men are not satisfied with "real" women,
but we crave some impossible ideal. Well, we do. And to get
it on a massive scale, we will have to build it.
> Or are you saying that somehow they will only be *good* enough to get
> close, but not *good* enough to appear genuine?
They will be "good" enough to be sexy. Whatever that turns
out to be.
Military and espionage organizations may seek to build
highly accurate duplicates of specific human beings. But
the goal with sexbots is to produce maximum sexual
stimulation and satisfaction. I expect that for most people,
the maximally satisfying sexbots would have combinations of
traits that would be virtually impossible to occur in a real
human, along with some possibly nonhuman traits (such as
having skin coloring and texture humans must apply cosmetics
to simulate).
When the average man meets (or tries to meet) a highly
attractive woman, usually he runs into an unreceptive
attitude.
Imagine meeting a woman you consider physically perfect
who also exhibits takes a positive, complimentary, even
fawning interest in you, as if she finds everything about
you genuinely impressive. You would realize in a few
minutes she is too good to be true (as a real woman),
unless you really are genuinely impressive to the hottest
women. (Most men aren't.)
> Drawing lines like that seems to be rather arbitrary.
That's why people design things: so they can draw arbitrary
lines where they like them, subject only to their skill as
designers.
There may be factors that will impede the development or
acceptance of sexbots. But those factors don't seem to be
impeding the spread of today's porn.
> > Sometimes it is desirable to leave out some things. For example,
> > you would not want to watch a war movie that was TOTALLY realistic,
> > to the point that actual bullets flew out of the screen and wounded
> > you.
> >
> > There are many aspects of real humans we do not want to build
> > into robots. There is not much point in building an EXACT
> > duplicate of a human anyway, because we already have humans,
> > with all their limitations and problems.
>
> I thought it would be an *exact duplicate* of a guy's dream
> woman...not just any woman.
It's possible for a guy to fall in love with a real woman
who quite different than his dream woman (or women---do you
dream about only one woman?). In fact for most
men that's the only option today.
A sexbot does not have to be "exactly" some particular thing
to be viable. It simply has to provide benefits to the customer
that seem worth the cost, in comparison to other things
the customer may buy.
How many products do you buy today that are exactly what
you want them to be? You might want them to be cheaper,
more reliable, less burdensome, or something.
Sexbots marketed to men will compete with real women. When
sexbots provide a better ratio of benefits to all costs
than real women do, sexbots will sell. That might happen
before sexbots become indistinguishable from real women.
Real women don't have to be perfect to be worth having around,
after all.
> Sure, we already have humans. But hotties are in short supply. I
> thought the idea was to build machines that appeared as hotties,
> machines that would trick the human senses into *seeing* the machine
> as human.
In some ways, but "human" has many aspects to it. For example,
humans regularly excrete feces. Most men probably don't have
much interest in watching (let alone smelling) women taking
dumps, so that would probably be one design feature the sexbot
would not duplicate.
Your conceptual error is to focus on the wrong thing. Regardless
of what a man thinks he wants, what he really wants is to
stimulate his brain by supplying it with sensory stimuli
that fall within the range of some internally programmed
template he has. It happens that some women fall within that
range, and to varying degrees. In the ancestral environment that
was enough to insure reproduction. But once people have the
ability, they might like to generate patterns of stimuli
which might turn out to be slightly different than anything
available naturally. There could be a slight mismatch
between preference and reality. In fact it's almost guaranteed
because evolution is not perfect.
> I don't see how you can arbitrarily draw lines, suggesting that
> technology will advance to the point where we are "almost" there, but
> not quite.
Technology will advance in whatever directions the market
demands, subject to how it can advance. Technology
could go in all sorts of directions, but only some of them
will sell.
The point of building a sexbot is to build something that
produces maximum sexual satisfaction in the customer. If
that means building something that is indistinguishable from
some real woman, that's where the market will push the
technology.
But I don't think that's what will happen, because we can
see real women are trying to make themselves LOOK MORE
ARTIFICIAL. They must be responding to market demand for
something which is not exactly human in every way. Real
humans get dirty, they stink, they grow hair in the wrong
places, they have skin flaws, etc. So a real human has to
do all kinds of maintenance rituals to keep reality somewhat
in check.
This has to do with the evolution of preference in a
diverse environment. It's like the way peahens want
peacocks with more-elaborate plumage, but the biological
cost of dragging such plumes around limits how stimulating
the real peacocks can be.
> > Sex robots aren't likely to pass for real humans because they
> > will have highly improbable combinations of traits. If some
> > stunningly attractive woman stranger approached me on the
> > street and started treating me like a rock star, I would
> > wonder what's wrong with this picture? No stunningly attractive
> > woman stranger has ever done that. Women who are highly
> > attractive behave as if they occupy a privileged position---
> > because they do.
>
> I find this highly unpersuasive. Either the sexbot appears *real*
> enough, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Either the normal
> male can *love* it, or he can't.
You are trying to scalarize a vector. Realism is not a
scalar. It's not even the issue here, as I tried to explain
above. *Satisfaction* is the issue.
If the market demands certain kinds of realism, technologists
will try to supply it.
If the market demands certain kinds of artificiality, technologists
will try to supply that as well. For example, just the fact that
one can own a robot immediately makes it different than a real human,
in a deep unbridgeable way.
Look at how unrealistic porn tends to be. Real women do not
generally dance around and strip for men, or have sex in
elaborate positions, or eagerly participate in certain kinds
of sex acts. Those are unrealistic learned behaviors
which many porn customers enjoy watching women do, more than
they enjoy watching whatever women would tend to do if left
to themselves. The women in porn are actors, after all. They
may be faking some or all of their enthusiasm.
> And if it appears *real* enough to elicit powerful human
> emotions...then you can't easily ignore the possibility that there
> will be emotions elicited that you haven't counted on....like hatred,
> resentment, jealously, sympathy, etc.
Sure, but with robots you have the possibility of studying how
the prototypes are doing and then redesigning them to work
the bugs out.
With real people you're pretty much stuck with what they are.
One reason there is stigma against certain groups is that they
don't do public relations very well. Maybe sexbots will be
smart enough to explain themselves adequately to their critics.
I think pretty much everybody is going to succumb to the
sirenlike temptation of artificial companions of some sort.
For people who aren't very horny, the companionship would not
have to be sexual.
> Again, I thought the whole point was to pass as human, and to be able
> to elicit emotional responses in males.
No, the whole point is to elicit the emotional response by whatever
method proves to be most effective. To the extent that various
components of realism serve that goal, technologists will try to
build them.
> If the sexbot can't do that, then who cares? It's just a fancy blow up
> doll.
I don't know what you mean by "just." I thought you said a difference
in degree can become a difference in kind. Keep making the blowup
doll "fancy" and eventually you might have something.
> But if it CAN do that, then how can we assume that it will only
> elicit certain human emotions in the guy, but leave the rest of
> society indifferent to it?
We can assume most people are largely indifferent to most
things, because they are. Only a few issues become important
enough to work people up.
Will sexbots find a way to get on that exclusive list of
hot-button issues? They might, but to do that they would
probably have to push other items down the list. Humans have
a finite capacity to get themselves worked up about other
peoples' business.
Generally for an issue to generate mass revulsion, it
has to attract a strong following from just a minority
who can be stigmatized. The majority will never stigmatize
itself.
For something to become stigmatized, it usually has to inflict
some sort of harm that attracts a lot of negative attention.
Sexbots could certainly qualify if they turn out to be:
a. Not too popular, and
b. Spectacularly harmful, or especially popular with sickos
who do bad things and give sexbots a bad name by illogical
association.
There is some chance of sexbots getting a bad name because
of course they will be most popular with the men who have the
fewest opportunities with real women. But a lot depends on how
*VISIBLE* sexbots are. If sexbot users keep their activities
private, they won't tend to get on the radar.
It's like the way the Internet has made porn less obtrusive,
by eliminating the need for visible porn shops that drew a
disturbingly public parade of porn customers. Now men can
sit in their homes and download porn, and nobody notices as
long as those men don't do something that calls attention to
their porn habits.
Out of sight, out of mind. It's like the way taking a crap
is ordinarily not an issue, because everbody keeps this
disturbing practice private.
> > > If the robot can elicit all the right urges and emotions in the
> > > owner...why wouldn't it also be *real* enough to elicit powerful
> > > responses from others?
> >
> > There are probably millions of poor people in the world who
> > would enjoy living in your house, but you don't let them.
> > Furthermore, you probably avoid taunting them about it.
> > Out of sight, out of mind.
>
> I suppose if the owners keep their robots entirely out of public view,
> then that would be one thing. But wouldn't guys want to go out and do
> things with their "dates", "girlfriends", or "wives"?
I don't know. Would they? Why would they?
With real women, you have to take them out because they demand
it. Taking women out on dates is not an end in itself, but a
means to an end (scoring with them).
Obviously it would be much more difficult to build a robot
capable of going out on dates. There might be some demand
for this, but maybe the custom of dating would shrink if
men no longer needed to do it.
Not to mention the fact that flaunting one's sexbot in public
might attract the very sort of negative attention you think
it will attract. Most people learn to hide their activities
that draw public disapproval.
> How would that
> qualify as an "out of sight, out of mind" situation?
Why are you assuming men will insist on doing something
unnecessary that will draw negative attention?
Things change in response to other things. If men get
punished for flaunting their sexbots, they will respond
by hiding them.
It's like the way the Internet tends to replace porn shops.
Men can shop for porn on the Internet without the shame
associated with going to a bricks-and-mortar porn shop.
> In any event, there is really no need to answer the rest of your post
> line by line. It's basically giving me a history lesson that I don't
> require. I've already heard all of the generic arguments that you
> used.
I would replace "require" with "benefit from."
> You did a fairly good job of showing how new technologies become
> accepted. Again, I'm already aware of all of that. My point was simply
> that those old arguments may not work when a certain line is crossed -
> that line being when the machine genuinely appears to be human.
The goal is to build something that genuinely appears to be
sexy.
Most humans are not very sexy. Those who are could generally
be even sexier if their appearance and/or behavior could be
adjusted.
We have already crossed the "genuinely appears to be human"
line in movies. People speak of seeing an actor "in" a movie.
When you watch the movie, there is no doubt that you are
seeing a depiction of a particular person which cannot
be mistaken for anything else.
I have not noticed any great upheaval in society resulting
from this. There are some strange effects, such as the way
fans of a famous entertainer tend to behave as if they
are familiar with him or her, when the real entertainer has
no idea who the fans are. But this has not caused the sky
to fall yet.
Granted, adding in more components of realism is going to
create situations that society has never faced before. Maybe
the sky will fall. Or maybe it won't. We will just have to
watch it play out.
> Or then again...maybe even after that line is crossed, the technology
> will gain acceptance in the traditional ways. I simply pointed out the
> possibility that new rules might apply.
Sure. I never denied that. But I think it's possible to look
at history and get some insight into the factors that could
influence the future.
> My best guess is that there will be some of both. I suspect that the
> new technologies will be largely accepted for many of the same reasons
> that technologies have been accepted in the past...and yet I don't
> think people are going to be as indifferent about realistic sexbots as
> they would be with a fancy toaster oven.
But will sexbots become as controversial as, say, abortion?
I would be surprised if they do, for a number of reasons.
> Darfalz smashing a toaster oven would be one thing. Darfalz savagely
> beating a sexbot that *appears* human is quite another.
If he does this on the evening news.
But it's possible Darkfalz wouldn't be so cranky if he got to
enjoy the loving attentions of his sexbot harem. Ever think of
that?
What do you think made Darkfalz what he is? I suspect the current
shitty sexual market played a big part. He's the prisoner of
the current unchangeable genetic game rules.
Back when slavery was legal, there were violent slave revolts
from time to time. After the slaves became free, they tended
to stop revolting. Duh.
Darkfalz himself may be too damaged for even sexbots to repair,
but future generations of genetically disadvantaged men might
avoid the damage in the first place, by having sexbots meet
their emotional needs during their critical formative years.
I know, it all sounds way too optimistic. I'm not trying to say
everything will ever be hunky-dory. But the doom-and-gloom
sensationalism sounds equally unlikely.
> But to me, if the entire PURPOSE of a machine is to appear as human,
It's not. The entire purpose of the SEXbot is to appear SEXy.
Maybe it turns out that certain nonhuman characteristics, such
as irridescent skin, will turn out to be sexier. Who knows?
> and to elicit "human to human" responses from its owner...then it
> seems difficult to compartmentalize and assume that it will not elicit
> responses from non-owners. Those responses may be sympathy, horror,
> fear, anger, jealousy, what have you.
Not all humans elicit all these emotions to the same degree.
Therefore it should be possible to design sexbots so as to
minimize their negative effects.
With humans, you're stuck with what they happen to be. You have
to take the bad with the good.
With robots you don't have that problem. You can design in the
good and design out the bad. That's the whole point of building
stuff.
For example, jealousy results from mismatches between supply
and demand. With robots you have the ability to increase the
supply to meet the demand.
> In other words, to me it seems intellectually tenuous that only
> desired responses will be elicited. Another way of putting it: if it's
> *good* enough to elicit love, it would presumably be *good* enough to
> elicit hate, fear, resentment, etc.
Of course every machine can malfunction or produce unintended
side effects, but over time designers study the flaws and try
to fix them.
Jet aircraft are more reliable today than the first ones were.
And so on. You can't eliminate all the accidents, but you can
engineer the rate down to something society can tolerate. The
goal is always to maximize the desirable features while minimizing
the undesirable features.
The early designs typically have a lot of undesirable features,
because the designers did not really know what they were
designing.
> And if it's not *good* enough to elicit love...then it is pretty much
> just a fancy blow up doll.
What does "just a fancy blow up doll" mean? That is, how do you
expect me to react to that seemingly dismissive remark?
I have no experience with fancy blow up dolls, so I don't
have any concept of that. Maybe "a fancy blow up doll" would
be a lot of fun, or maybe it would not.
Also, I'm not sure what realism has to do with love. People
can love dogs, cats, their automobiles, etc. When people
invented automobiles, "love" was probably not the need they
were trying to address. The first goal was mobility. It
turned out later that many people developed deep emotional
attachments to their automobiles.
Kind of like the way men see women they find hot, and only
later sometimes fall in love with them.
-- the Danimal
Sharon B
(Trainspotter) wrote in
<25414bb1.04062...@posting.google.com>:
>Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>
>> Your over inflated ego aside, I'm sitting in here in soc.singles
>> minding my own business when you burst in and start calling me names,
>> fool.
>
>LOL You are losing what little sanity that you had. I "burst" in and
>called you names?????
something along the lines of "the typical american woman is too self
centered"
do you not recall saying that?
>Are you starting to hear voices as well?
I've heard voices all my life....haven't you?
>> You're too funny. You crosspost to a ng full of American women--a ng
>> you don't even sub to, IIRC, and start calling these women selfish and
>> other assorted names, then call them compulsive cyber stalkers who are
>> following you around when they reply to your bigoted remarks.
>
>LOL.
>
>The scary thing is you probably believe your own delusions.
"But most likely they don't really care about the
supposedly "oppressed" foreign bride. The typical American female is
far too self-centered to care about something like that"
"And when someone compulsively follows another poster around and
starts flame wars...it's called trolling or cyber stalking."
Message-ID: <25414bb1.04060...@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: <25414bb1.04060...@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: <25414bb1.0406...@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: <25414bb1.04061...@posting.google.com>
>> [...]
>> >> again, that "american women are self centered" was particularly
>> >> revealing
>> >
>> >It was meant to be.
>>
>> I doona thin' it revealed what you think it did.
>
>Try to control your compulsive trolling and flaming.
Ah, Cluespotter, yer just jealous cuz I'm better at it than you are.
Try to develop a thing called "subtlety". Going into a newsgroup
populated by American women and calling them self centered is about as
subtle as day old cow pie on concrete.
And stop whining about being "cyberstalked" because I called you on
your bigoted comments, ya big crybaby.
>Maybe you could
>get a hobby or something?
*snarf*
the "get a life" lame, eh PKB bjoi?
"a hobby"....as in singular? oddly enough, none of my hobbies
involve alcohol...
The Danimal
> In article <cac1ad88.04063...@posting.google.com>, The Danimal
> says...
> >
> >Dr Chaos <mbkennelS...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:<slrnce3gtc.89p.m...@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>...
> >> On 28 Jun 2004 18:05:00 -0700, The Danimal <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote:
>
> >> So Dan, do you think that very realistic baby-bots will fulfill the
> >> desire of many young women to spawn mewling dependents?
> >
> >Little girls have been given dolls to play with for
> >hundreds of years, so there is precedent.
I should have mentioned that I am not sure why little boys
don't get dolls to teach them what they must do to make babies.
Perhaps because primitive dolls would not provide any useful
training to tackle the difficult part of the problem.
> ok, but there is a difference between 'pretend games' which are
> practice for the real thing and a robotic substitution for the real thing.
I'm not sure what you mean, or what you expect your statement
to convey.
Of course there are differences between different things. But
I am aware of no specific attempt to limit the realism of dolls
in the past. It seems doll designers have tended to make
their dolls about as realistic as they could, subject to the
constraints of the technology they had to work with at the time,
and their customers' ability to pay.
Dolls have also gradually simulated more aspects of the real
thing, with features such as the ability to make sounds, move,
and wet themselves.
Also, I doubt the goal with dolls is to provide "practice" so
much as to provide entertainment. Little girls play with dolls
because they enjoy them, not because they are participating in
some sort of deliberately organized scheme to prepare them for
some future activity. The best way to prepare girls for future
motherhood would be to let them accompany real mothers as they
care for their real babies (which some girls do).
> <snip>
> >Technology may be able to safisfy almost everyone with
> >harmless yet sufficiently stimulating fakes.
> >
> >The exception might be people who by reason of
> >mental defect feel urges to actually inflict
> >real pain on real people and would not "buy" the fake experience.
>
> um...what about the people who want to inflict real joy on real people?
They could help design sexbots, or give them to others
as gifts.
-- the Danimal
The Danimal
> On 29 Jun 2004 14:13:17 -0700, trainsp...@hotmail.com
> (Trainspotter) wrote in
> <25414bb1.04062...@posting.google.com>:
> >Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message
> >> Your over inflated ego aside, I'm sitting in here in soc.singles
> >> minding my own business when you burst in and start calling me names,
> >> fool.
> >
> >LOL You are losing what little sanity that you had. I "burst" in and
> >called you names?????
>
> something along the lines of "the typical american woman is too self
> centered"
Everybody is self-centered, so self-centeredness would be
typical of the typical American woman.
As far as whether she is "too" self-centered, everyone
would have their own subjective perception of that.
Generally, self-centered people consider other people to
be "too" self-centered when the self-centeredness of those
other people conflicts with the self-centeredness of the
self-centered people.
In other words, if I want X, and someone who controls X
does not want to give it to me, then the person who
controls X is "too" self-centered in my perception.
Trainspotter's error was his failure to declare his
frame of reference. But his name-calling did not resort
to outright inaccuracy, the way calling someone whose
head does not consist of shit a "shit-head," for example.
I am sure the typical American woman strikes *somebody*
as being "too" self-centered.
I am sure some people think I am a "bad" writer. Does that
make me a "bad" writer? To them it certainly does.
It's hard to think objectively about subjectivity. But
everybody should try. That is, if they can overcome their
self-centeredness sufficiently.
> >> You're too funny. You crosspost to a ng full of American women--a ng
> >> you don't even sub to, IIRC, and start calling these women selfish and
You should focus on the "too" selfish part, because that is
debatable. "Selfish" is not debatable, as anybody
can quickly demonstrate by insulting them.
> >> other assorted names,
Only a selfish person could be offended by being called
a selfish woman. (I had to specify "person" because you
could probably also offend a selfish man by calling him a
selfish woman.)
The unselfish response would be to accept everyone else's
opinion as being equally valid for them, without experiencing
the emotions of offense.
> >> then call them compulsive cyber stalkers who are
> >> following you around when they reply to your bigoted remarks.
> >
> >LOL.
> >
> >The scary thing is you probably believe your own delusions.
This line of argument is unproductive.
> "But most likely they don't really care about the
> supposedly "oppressed" foreign bride. The typical American female is
> far too self-centered to care about something like that"
I've seen recent news reports about a million black Sudanese
who may starve because they have been driven from their homelands
by Arab Sudanese militiamen. Do you care about that?
> >> [...]
> >> >> again, that "american women are self centered" was particularly
> >> >> revealing
> >> >
> >> >It was meant to be.
> >>
> >> I doona thin' it revealed what you think it did.
> >
> >Try to control your compulsive trolling and flaming.
>
> Ah, Cluespotter, yer just jealous cuz I'm better at it than you are.
> Try to develop a thing called "subtlety". Going into a newsgroup
> populated by American women and calling them self centered is about as
> subtle as day old cow pie on concrete.
I agree; when one calls a group of self-centered people
"self-centered" one is likely to get an energetic response.
-- the Danimal
The Danimal
> The Danimal's post:
> > There are already rudimentary robotic cats and dogs on
> > the market, for those who want the sensory stimulation
> > without all the hair, mess, crap, piss, vomit, labor,
> > and veterinarian fees.
>
> I can't wait till these get refined. I'm not getting another pet until I can
> get a 'simulant'.
Imagine having the psychological benefits of pet ownership
in a machine that would actually reduce the demands on your
time and energy, instead of adding to them as a real pet
does.
-- the Danimal
Trainspotter
> >
> >LOL You are losing what little sanity that you had. I "burst" in and
> >called you names?????
>
> something along the lines of "the typical american woman is too self
> centered"
>
> do you not recall saying that?
LOL It doesn't matter whether I recall it or not. I'll say it right
now: "the typical American woman is too self centered".
The horror!!!!
I can't BELIEVE anyone would say such a thing!!!!
Let's start a flamewar over it!!!
LOL
I can see the future documentaries now, with chilling violin music and
sorrowful pictures as the dreaded sentence is slowly intoned!!!
Get a life.
>
> >Are you starting to hear voices as well?
>
> I've heard voices all my life....haven't you?
Who said that?
> >The scary thing is you probably believe your own delusions.
>
> "But most likely they don't really care about the
> supposedly "oppressed" foreign bride. The typical American female is
> far too self-centered to care about something like that"
LOL
HORRORS!!!!!!!!!
I can't BELIEVE that someone would write such a thing!!!!!
You have lost your mind.
>
> "And when someone compulsively follows another poster around and
> starts flame wars...it's called trolling or cyber stalking."
Yeah...if you want to avoid the nuthouse, you might want to wake up to
a little thing called reality. You have initiated conversations with
me...not the other way around.
Have you actually gone so completely insane that you can follow
someone around, initiate flamewars with them...and then don't realize
that you did it?
If so, then in all seriousness you need help of a professional nature.
You initiated these flames...not me. Anyone can check the threads and
see that you do it. Get some help.
>
> Message-ID: <25414bb1.04060...@posting.google.com>
> Message-ID: <25414bb1.04060...@posting.google.com>
> Message-ID: <25414bb1.0406...@posting.google.com>
> Message-ID: <25414bb1.04061...@posting.google.com>
>
> >
> >Try to control your compulsive trolling and flaming.
>
> Ah, Cluespotter, yer just jealous cuz I'm better at it than you are.
hahahahahha Yeah, that's what it is, Slaggy. The only thing I've seen
that you are *better* than most at is being a thouroghly wretched
human being. Oh, and let's not forget acting like a psychotic child.
You are quite accomplished at that.
> Try to develop a thing called "subtlety". Going into a newsgroup
> populated by American women and calling them self centered is about as
> subtle as day old cow pie on concrete.
Something your are undoubtedly intimately familiar with.
>
> And stop whining about being "cyberstalked" because I called you on
> your bigoted comments, ya big crybaby.
I think it is funny the way you continue to reveal youself as a
deluded psycho.
>
> >Maybe you could
> >get a hobby or something?
>
> *snarf*
> the "get a life" lame, eh PKB bjoi?
Slaggy initiates the personal attack by calling me a lounge lizard. I
modestly suggest that she get a hobby...and naturally the psycho
complains that personal comments are lame...after initiating them, of
course.
Again: if Sharon makes an accusation, it is the surest way of knowing
that she is guilty of it.
>
> "a hobby"....as in singular? oddly enough, none of my hobbies
> involve alcohol...
You are plenty wacked out of your brain without any outside
inducement.
Trainspotter
> > The "so what" is pretty signficant. The whole idea of realistic
> > sexbots would be that the machine no longer *appears* to be a machine.
> > Once that threshold is crossed, a lot of issues are raised.
>
> People deal with issues every day. What's your point?
The *point* would be whether there is a sufficient difference that old
analogies lose some of their power.
For instance, one could make all sorts of very good analogies between
illegal narcotics and the perfectly legal alcohol. Some of those
analogies might be quite convincing. But, at the end of the day, the
differences between legal alcohol and illegal narcotics have led to
OBVIOUSLY widely varying policies toward each.
I'm simply pointing out the possibility that once you start having
machines that no longer *appear* as machines, it seems plausible that
things might not go quite as historical analogies would otherwise
predict. Then again, they might.
>
> In any case, a sexbot would still obviously be a machine
> by being too impossibly perfect, a point I have made
> repeatedly. The market may even find sexbots sexier that
> do not look exactly like real humans. Maybe metallic-looking
> skin will be more popular, or something like that.
Again, we've gone round and round over this point. I just don't find
it convincing. To me, it either fools the human senses *enough*, or it
doesn't.
>
> Making them humanlike to some degree is only a possible means
> to the end of making them entertaining and satisfying companions.
> The market will determine how much duplication of real women
> is ideal.
And my point is that once a certain line is passed, it seems plausible
that society may not choose to treat them as they would a very
expensive toaster oven.
> >
> > Danimal...I get all of that. I thought the idea was that the sexbot
> > would, to the human senses, appear to be human.
>
> The idea is for the SEXbot to be as SEXy as inhumanly
> possible.
>
> Real humans invariably have flaws that render them less
> than maximally attractive. For example, even the most
> beautiful women on Earth apply makeup, shave their bodies,
> arrange their hair, etc., to bring them closer to some
> aesthetic ideal which did not evolve on its own.
>
> The robot would just always look that good. It would clearly
> be unnatural. It would be *BETTER* than natural.
But does this necessarily mean that it would not evoke powerful human
emotions?
And once it evokes powerful human emotions on a large enough scale,
then how likely is it to be treated as the equivilant of a fancy
toaster oven?
>
> Women complain that men are not satisfied with "real" women,
> but we crave some impossible ideal. Well, we do. And to get
> it on a massive scale, we will have to build it.
>
> > Or are you saying that somehow they will only be *good* enough to get
> > close, but not *good* enough to appear genuine?
>
> They will be "good" enough to be sexy. Whatever that turns
> out to be.
For most people, there is a substantial connection between emotions
and sex. Not absolute, of course, and it is certainly true that many
people don't feel such a connection in a particular case. But the
point is that most guys are not satisfied with "just sex"...or more
guys would simply utilize prostitutes and save themselves an awful lot
of anguish and headache (not to mention that it might even be cheaper
in the long run).
> Military and espionage organizations may seek to build
> highly accurate duplicates of specific human beings. But
> the goal with sexbots is to produce maximum sexual
> stimulation and satisfaction. I expect that for most people,
> the maximally satisfying sexbots would have combinations of
> traits that would be virtually impossible to occur in a real
> human, along with some possibly nonhuman traits (such as
> having skin coloring and texture humans must apply cosmetics
> to simulate).
>
> When the average man meets (or tries to meet) a highly
> attractive woman, usually he runs into an unreceptive
> attitude.
>
> Imagine meeting a woman you consider physically perfect
> who also exhibits takes a positive, complimentary, even
> fawning interest in you, as if she finds everything about
> you genuinely impressive. You would realize in a few
> minutes she is too good to be true (as a real woman),
> unless you really are genuinely impressive to the hottest
> women. (Most men aren't.)
Sure...but IF the guy went ahead and got involved with the girl...he's
probably going to experience very powerful emotions of love and
attraction. That she was "too good to be true" isn't going to prevent
that...as long as they spend some time together.
>
> > Drawing lines like that seems to be rather arbitrary.
>
> That's why people design things: so they can draw arbitrary
> lines where they like them, subject only to their skill as
> designers.
>
> There may be factors that will impede the development or
> acceptance of sexbots. But those factors don't seem to be
> impeding the spread of today's porn.
Yes, but porn actresses are still human being in the eyes of the law.
Again, I pose the question:
Do you expect the public to react the same way to:
1. Darkfalz smashing a fancy toaster oven?
And:
2. Darkfalz smashing a sexbot that *appears* human?
If you can't say that you expect the public to react the same way to
both questions, then I think it is reasonable to suggest that this
could be a dicey subject.
> >
> > I thought it would be an *exact duplicate* of a guy's dream
> > woman...not just any woman.
>
> It's possible for a guy to fall in love with a real woman
> who quite different than his dream woman (or women---do you
> dream about only one woman?). In fact for most
> men that's the only option today.
Clearly.
>
> A sexbot does not have to be "exactly" some particular thing
> to be viable. It simply has to provide benefits to the customer
> that seem worth the cost, in comparison to other things
> the customer may buy.
I think we're getting sidetracked here. But just to go with it
briefly: when and if this technology reaches a high level of
development, presumably people would be able to order different models
to suit them.
>
> How many products do you buy today that are exactly what
> you want them to be? You might want them to be cheaper,
> more reliable, less burdensome, or something.
Again, you are taking a throw away line of mine and going down the
rabbit hole. My choice of words was sloppy, so let me clear it up: I
did not mean to suggest that the sexbot would have to literally be
*exactly* what the guy wants. All I meant was that presumably the
sexbots would reach a point where they could *appear* as hotties which
are very attractive.
>
> Sexbots marketed to men will compete with real women. When
> sexbots provide a better ratio of benefits to all costs
> than real women do, sexbots will sell. That might happen
> before sexbots become indistinguishable from real women.
> Real women don't have to be perfect to be worth having around,
> after all.
Again, that's not at issue. All that is at issue is what happens when
and if machines appear to be human,and start eliciting powerful
emotions from real humans.
>
> > Sure, we already have humans. But hotties are in short supply. I
> > thought the idea was to build machines that appeared as hotties,
> > machines that would trick the human senses into *seeing* the machine
> > as human.
>
> In some ways, but "human" has many aspects to it. For example,
> humans regularly excrete feces. Most men probably don't have
> much interest in watching (let alone smelling) women taking
> dumps, so that would probably be one design feature the sexbot
> would not duplicate.
Again, not really the point. The primary issue is simply whether
these machines appear human to the point where they start eliciting
serious emotions on a large scale. If and when that happens, a new
boundary has been crossed. The question then becomes does the crossing
of the new boundary throw the old analogies out the window?
>
> Your conceptual error is to focus on the wrong thing. Regardless
> of what a man thinks he wants, what he really wants is to
> stimulate his brain by supplying it with sensory stimuli
> that fall within the range of some internally programmed
> template he has. It happens that some women fall within that
> range, and to varying degrees. In the ancestral environment that
> was enough to insure reproduction. But once people have the
> ability, they might like to generate patterns of stimuli
> which might turn out to be slightly different than anything
> available naturally. There could be a slight mismatch
> between preference and reality. In fact it's almost guaranteed
> because evolution is not perfect.
I'm not focused on the wrong things. We are just talking about
different things. You are trying to tell me how attraction works. I'm
saying that the main relevant point is simply whether the sexbots
*appear* sufficienty human to elicit powerful emotions.
In other words...will they be viewed as just a fancy toaster...or
something different? My best guess is that they will fall in the
"something different" category, and that society at large will not be
as indifferent to them as you suggest.
>
> > I don't see how you can arbitrarily draw lines, suggesting that
> > technology will advance to the point where we are "almost" there, but
> > not quite.
>
> Technology will advance in whatever directions the market
> demands, subject to how it can advance. Technology
> could go in all sorts of directions, but only some of them
> will sell.
Machines that appear as beautiful hotties will sell (assuming they are
affordable). I don't think there is any doubt about that. Which is why
it seems strange that anyone would suggest that sexbots can get
"almost" there, but not quite.
> The point of building a sexbot is to build something that
> produces maximum sexual satisfaction in the customer. If
> that means building something that is indistinguishable from
> some real woman, that's where the market will push the
> technology.
Which is what I was saying. And as silly as long range predictions can
be, you and I both know that if indistinguishable machine/hotties were
available and affordable...they would sell. Today. In large numbers.
Hell, who knows? I might even buy one myself. lol
And if they didn' sell...then fine. Much of this discussion becomes
mooted at that point. As long as the machine is *clearly* identifiable
as a machine, and is not eliciting widespread emotional reactions from
real humans...most of my concerns don't come into play, and the
various historical analogies that you have used would be much more
likely to come into effect.
> >
> > I find this highly unpersuasive. Either the sexbot appears *real*
> > enough, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways. Either the normal
> > male can *love* it, or he can't.
>
> You are trying to scalarize a vector. Realism is not a
> scalar. It's not even the issue here, as I tried to explain
> above. *Satisfaction* is the issue.
Emotion is the issue. Either the sexbots elicit, on a widespread
scale, "human to human" emotions...or they don't. If they don't, then
they may well be viewed as just a fancy toaster oven. But if they do,
then I'm less than convinced that they will experience the normal
acceptance history of more standard technology.
>
> If the market demands certain kinds of realism, technologists
> will try to supply it.
Sure. Which is why I have little doubt that if you had robots
indistinguishable from hotties...there would almost certainly be
demand.
>
> If the market demands certain kinds of artificiality, technologists
> will try to supply that as well. For example, just the fact that
> one can own a robot immediately makes it different than a real human,
> in a deep unbridgeable way.
Not historically. Not in certain areas of the world to this day, as a
matter of fact.
But again, even if there are "unbridgeable" differences, at the end of
the day we are back at the million dollar question: is it realistic
enough that it tends to elicit "human to human" emotions?
>
> > And if it appears *real* enough to elicit powerful human
> > emotions...then you can't easily ignore the possibility that there
> > will be emotions elicited that you haven't counted on....like hatred,
> > resentment, jealously, sympathy, etc.
>
> Sure, but with robots you have the possibility of studying how
> the prototypes are doing and then redesigning them to work
> the bugs out.
What I'm talking about isn't a "bug". I'm talking about what happens
when the robots are so well done that real guys are falling in love
with them.
>
> With real people you're pretty much stuck with what they are.
>
> One reason there is stigma against certain groups is that they
> don't do public relations very well. Maybe sexbots will be
> smart enough to explain themselves adequately to their critics.
>
> I think pretty much everybody is going to succumb to the
> sirenlike temptation of artificial companions of some sort.
> For people who aren't very horny, the companionship would not
> have to be sexual.
Perhaps.
>
> > Again, I thought the whole point was to pass as human, and to be able
> > to elicit emotional responses in males.
>
> No, the whole point is to elicit the emotional response by whatever
> method proves to be most effective. To the extent that various
> components of realism serve that goal, technologists will try to
> build them.
Sure, but it still seems that you are dodging the point. I think one
can look around and see that most guys want *love*. Look around. Most
of the "loser guys" could go to a prostitute...but probably most
don't. And even those that do go still want *more*.
Is there really any doubt in your mind that there would be a
substantial market for sexbots if they were realistic enough to elicit
love and romance? To be a genuine substitute for real human females,
with all the of the attendant costs and risks that human females
create?
There is no similar doubt in my mind. I know plenty of guys who would
buy one TODAY if it were at all reasonable to do so. But just a fancy
sex machine? Maybe, maybe not.
>
> > If the sexbot can't do that, then who cares? It's just a fancy blow up
> > doll.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "just." I thought you said a difference
> in degree can become a difference in kind. Keep making the blowup
> doll "fancy" and eventually you might have something.
Well, sure. The dividing line for me is whether it can elicit serious
human to human emotions on a large scale. I say "on a large scale" to
note that just because a lone pyscho falls in love with his blowup
doll, that wouldn't suffice. I'm talking about robots that are capable
of eliciting love from a significant portion of their owners. Once
that line is crossed, how can we be certain that the rest of society
will be indifferent to this new "human appearing" population?
>
> > But if it CAN do that, then how can we assume that it will only
> > elicit certain human emotions in the guy, but leave the rest of
> > society indifferent to it?
>
> We can assume most people are largely indifferent to most
> things, because they are. Only a few issues become important
> enough to work people up.
Probably the best argument I've heard. While it doesn't decide the
issue for me, I'll accept it as a big factor.
>
> Will sexbots find a way to get on that exclusive list of
> hot-button issues? They might, but to do that they would
> probably have to push other items down the list. Humans have
> a finite capacity to get themselves worked up about other
> peoples' business.
True enough.
>
> Generally for an issue to generate mass revulsion, it
> has to attract a strong following from just a minority
> who can be stigmatized. The majority will never stigmatize
> itself.
Um...that's a little more debatable.
>
> For something to become stigmatized, it usually has to inflict
> some sort of harm that attracts a lot of negative attention.
>
> Sexbots could certainly qualify if they turn out to be:
>
> a. Not too popular, and
>
> b. Spectacularly harmful, or especially popular with sickos
> who do bad things and give sexbots a bad name by illogical
> association.
>
> There is some chance of sexbots getting a bad name because
> of course they will be most popular with the men who have the
> fewest opportunities with real women. But a lot depends on how
> *VISIBLE* sexbots are. If sexbot users keep their activities
> private, they won't tend to get on the radar.
Right, I think we addressed this before. But presumably guys are going
to want someone (thing) to go out on dates with, go on vacation with,
etc.
>
> It's like the way the Internet has made porn less obtrusive,
> by eliminating the need for visible porn shops that drew a
> disturbingly public parade of porn customers. Now men can
> sit in their homes and download porn, and nobody notices as
> long as those men don't do something that calls attention to
> their porn habits.
>
> Out of sight, out of mind. It's like the way taking a crap
> is ordinarily not an issue, because everbody keeps this
> disturbing practice private.
> >
> > I suppose if the owners keep their robots entirely out of public view,
> > then that would be one thing. But wouldn't guys want to go out and do
> > things with their "dates", "girlfriends", or "wives"?
>
> I don't know. Would they? Why would they?
Why wouldn't they?
>
> With real women, you have to take them out because they demand
> it. Taking women out on dates is not an end in itself, but a
> means to an end (scoring with them).
True, and I have no doubt that the average boyfriend would rather not
go out as much as the average girlfriend. But guys want to go out too,
if only for a walk, or to go on a trip, or go boating, or go to a
movie, or whatever. I think it's natural to want a companion for these
things.
>
> Obviously it would be much more difficult to build a robot
> capable of going out on dates. There might be some demand
> for this, but maybe the custom of dating would shrink if
> men no longer needed to do it.
True, much more difficult. But I thought that was sort of the idea.
Otherwise, we're talking about a blowup doll that, while it might be
effective for sex, wouldn't likely appear "human" enough to elicit the
powerful emotions that I'm talking about. In which case, the more
tradiational historical analogies would seem to come into play, with
my concerns not really coming to fruition.
>
> Not to mention the fact that flaunting one's sexbot in public
> might attract the very sort of negative attention you think
> it will attract. Most people learn to hide their activities
> that draw public disapproval.
>
> > How would that
> > qualify as an "out of sight, out of mind" situation?
>
> Why are you assuming men will insist on doing something
> unnecessary that will draw negative attention?
Come on Danimal. Even guys that don't give a rat's ass about dating
still have social functions, business dinners, cocktail parties, etc.
People have reasons to go out, and most prefer to have a date with
them.
Is that really in dispute? One of the biggest dreads of the singleton
is always having to venture out in public alone. Always showing up at
family functions alone, that sort of thing.
>
> Things change in response to other things. If men get
> punished for flaunting their sexbots, they will respond
> by hiding them.
Again, perhaps.
>
> It's like the way the Internet tends to replace porn shops.
> Men can shop for porn on the Internet without the shame
> associated with going to a bricks-and-mortar porn shop.
If your argument is that they will need to hide their sexbots, then
you are somewhat conceding that public reaction to this might not be
all roses...which was my initial point.
>
> > In any event, there is really no need to answer the rest of your post
> > line by line. It's basically giving me a history lesson that I don't
> > require. I've already heard all of the generic arguments that you
> > used.
>
> I would replace "require" with "benefit from."
I've heard all the arguments you used before, and have made many of
them myself. So I neither required it nor benefited from it, though
lurkers might.
In any event, I wasn't criticizing your history lesson in and of
itself. I was simply pointing out that my whole argument was that new
rules may apply, and that the old ways that technology tended to be
accepted might not apply. Or might not apply as well.
Basically, I say "Robotic machines that appear as genuinely human
would mean a new boundary being crossed, and one that may lead to the
old rules not applying."
You then give me the old rules. And remember, I'm not saying that you
are necessarily wrong. It may work out just as you argue. I'm simply
pointing out that, to me, it seems plausible that things will take a
different course.
>
> We have already crossed the "genuinely appears to be human"
> line in movies. People speak of seeing an actor "in" a movie.
> When you watch the movie, there is no doubt that you are
> seeing a depiction of a particular person which cannot
> be mistaken for anything else.
>
> I have not noticed any great upheaval in society resulting
> from this. There are some strange effects, such as the way
> fans of a famous entertainer tend to behave as if they
> are familiar with him or her, when the real entertainer has
> no idea who the fans are. But this has not caused the sky
> to fall yet.
Um...why would it cause the sky to fall? The actor is a real human
being, he is afforded all civil rights and protections. He is
protected and recognized as a human being.
But people can fall in love with the *image*, which would seem to
support more of what I'm saying.
>
> Granted, adding in more components of realism is going to
> create situations that society has never faced before. Maybe
> the sky will fall. Or maybe it won't. We will just have to
> watch it play out.
We are in agreement. lol
>
> > Or then again...maybe even after that line is crossed, the technology
> > will gain acceptance in the traditional ways. I simply pointed out the
> > possibility that new rules might apply.
>
> Sure. I never denied that. But I think it's possible to look
> at history and get some insight into the factors that could
> influence the future.
Agreed.
>
> > My best guess is that there will be some of both. I suspect that the
> > new technologies will be largely accepted for many of the same reasons
> > that technologies have been accepted in the past...and yet I don't
> > think people are going to be as indifferent about realistic sexbots as
> > they would be with a fancy toaster oven.
>
> But will sexbots become as controversial as, say, abortion?
> I would be surprised if they do, for a number of reasons.
>
> > Darfalz smashing a toaster oven would be one thing. Darfalz savagely
> > beating a sexbot that *appears* human is quite another.
>
> If he does this on the evening news.
>
> But it's possible Darkfalz wouldn't be so cranky if he got to
> enjoy the loving attentions of his sexbot harem. Ever think of
> that?
Sure. But human beings are notorious for finding ways to abuse other
human beings.
In any event, the point of the questions was really not to focus on
the particular case of a savage beating. The point was simply to use
that one example to illustrate a broader issue: namely, will these
robots elicit feelings of humanity from people, or will they simply be
viewed as machinery?
If the answer is closer to the former, then it wouldn't take just a
savage beating to make the bots a political or social issue. It could
be any number of things, many far more subtle than Darkfalz on a tear.
>
> What do you think made Darkfalz what he is? I suspect the current
> shitty sexual market played a big part. He's the prisoner of
> the current unchangeable genetic game rules.
>
> Back when slavery was legal, there were violent slave revolts
> from time to time. After the slaves became free, they tended
> to stop revolting. Duh.
Then it's not called a "slave revolt" anymore.
It's called a riot.
>
> Darkfalz himself may be too damaged for even sexbots to repair,
> but future generations of genetically disadvantaged men might
> avoid the damage in the first place, by having sexbots meet
> their emotional needs during their critical formative years.
Um...possible. But some of the most savage types in history have had
harems, so I'm not at all convinced that lots of sex makes men
peaceful and angelic. But, on the other hand, it would probably help
some.
Another coin toss.
>
> I know, it all sounds way too optimistic. I'm not trying to say
> everything will ever be hunky-dory. But the doom-and-gloom
> sensationalism sounds equally unlikely.
I'm not really doom-and-glooming it. Simply pointing out that some
interesting lines may be crossed that mankind has never crossed
before.
>
> > But to me, if the entire PURPOSE of a machine is to appear as human,
>
> It's not. The entire purpose of the SEXbot is to appear SEXy.
>
> Maybe it turns out that certain nonhuman characteristics, such
> as irridescent skin, will turn out to be sexier. Who knows?
True. But again, the million dollar question is whether it will elicit
"human to human" type emotions.
>
> > and to elicit "human to human" responses from its owner...then it
> > seems difficult to compartmentalize and assume that it will not elicit
> > responses from non-owners. Those responses may be sympathy, horror,
> > fear, anger, jealousy, what have you.
>
> Not all humans elicit all these emotions to the same degree.
> Therefore it should be possible to design sexbots so as to
> minimize their negative effects.
>
> With humans, you're stuck with what they happen to be. You have
> to take the bad with the good.
>
> With robots you don't have that problem. You can design in the
> good and design out the bad. That's the whole point of building
> stuff.
Yeah, but it would be interesting indeed to see *technology* build
robots that can elicit love and passion in their owners, but somehow
have non-owners indifferent to it.
>
> For example, jealousy results from mismatches between supply
> and demand. With robots you have the ability to increase the
> supply to meet the demand.
True enough. The real question is whether there will be significant
groups of the population who feel that their ox is being gored.
>
> > In other words, to me it seems intellectually tenuous that only
> > desired responses will be elicited. Another way of putting it: if it's
> > *good* enough to elicit love, it would presumably be *good* enough to
> > elicit hate, fear, resentment, etc.
>
> Of course every machine can malfunction or produce unintended
> side effects, but over time designers study the flaws and try
> to fix them.
>
> Jet aircraft are more reliable today than the first ones were.
> And so on. You can't eliminate all the accidents, but you can
> engineer the rate down to something society can tolerate. The
> goal is always to maximize the desirable features while minimizing
> the undesirable features.
But again, we're not talking about a flaw. We're talking about the
consequences of SUCCESS.
Which is sort of the whole point: could *success* become a flaw?
>
> The early designs typically have a lot of undesirable features,
> because the designers did not really know what they were
> designing.
>
> > And if it's not *good* enough to elicit love...then it is pretty much
> > just a fancy blow up doll.
>
> What does "just a fancy blow up doll" mean? That is, how do you
> expect me to react to that seemingly dismissive remark?
It wasn't meant to be dismissive of the issue as a whole.
I'm simply pointing out that vibrators, dildos and other sex machines
don't appear as human. They don't elicit human-on-human emotions...at
least in and of themselves.
To me, the whole purpose of this discussion is what happens when the
machine no longer appears to be be a machine, but human. When the
machine is no longer just a fancy blowup doll that is recognized by
everyone as, well, just a machine.
I'm talking about a big step beyond that. The machine that no longer
appears as the machine. We can quibble about it being "too good to be
true" or what not, but the real point is simple: can it elicit the
powerful human on human emotions that most of us want?
To me, THAT is the real market. Right now, guys can get plenty of
sex...even loserguys. They can just go to prostitutes.
In order to have something REALLY REVOLUTIONARY, one needs to provide
that *something more* that most guys want. Romance, love, etc.
Otherwise, if sexbots can't elicit such feelings, then they are just
mechanical prostitutes. Which of course would have advantages
(disease, law enforcement, crime, etc.), but it wouldn't really be a
revolution. It would be more akin to your porn analogy...now the guy
can get in the privacy of his home some things that in the past he
would have to inconvenience himself for.
But most guys want the "more".
If the sexbot can reach the level where powerful human to human
emotions develop...then we've got the revolution. And then we've at
least potentially got the problems.
>
> I have no experience with fancy blow up dolls, so I don't
> have any concept of that. Maybe "a fancy blow up doll" would
> be a lot of fun, or maybe it would not.
>
> Also, I'm not sure what realism has to do with love. People
> can love dogs, cats, their automobiles, etc. When people
> invented automobiles, "love" was probably not the need they
> were trying to address. The first goal was mobility. It
> turned out later that many people developed deep emotional
> attachments to their automobiles.
There are different levels of love. The question is, what level will
the *love* be when robots can appear as hotties? Will it be sufficient
to perhaps replace human "hottie dominance" over the male psyche?
>
> Kind of like the way men see women they find hot, and only
> later sometimes fall in love with them.
Ever see "Cherry 2000"?
Sharon B
(Trainspotter) wrote in
<25414bb1.04070...@posting.google.com>:
>Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message
>
>> >
>> >LOL You are losing what little sanity that you had. I "burst" in and
>> >called you names?????
>>
>> something along the lines of "the typical american woman is too self
>> centered"
>>
>> do you not recall saying that?
>
>LOL It doesn't matter whether I recall it or not.
Actually, it *does* matter, since that is the point you are
contesting.
dunbass
You don't read soc.singles. You know I do. You xposted flame bait
denigrating American women to soc.singles.
>I'll say it right
>now: "the typical American woman is too self centered".
>
>The horror!!!!
>
>I can't BELIEVE I'm such a stupid bigot!!!!
fixed yer typo. you're in the wrong ng, you need to be in soc.men
where the other stupid bigots whine.
>Let's start a flamewar over it!!!
You xposted flame bait to a ng you don't read. You *wanted* to incite
negative responses. Or you're a simpleton. Both are equally valid
possibilities.
Quit playing with matches if you're gonna whine when you get burned.
[...]
>> "But most likely they don't really care about the
>> supposedly "oppressed" foreign bride. The typical American female is
>> far too self-centered to care about something like that"
>
>LOL
>
>HORRORS!!!!!!!!!
>
>I can't BELIEVE that someone would write such a thing!!!!!
I am rarely shocked at what I see on Usenet. What I find *amusing* is
that you post it, then subsequently claim it's not incendiary or
trollish....and then claim those who find it so are insane.
At least your slurp buddy Sobolewski is self aware enough to realize
he's doing it.
>You have initiated conversations with
>me...not the other way around.
Babble bjoi, you were clearly soliciting widespread female attention.
[...]
>> >Try to control your compulsive trolling and flaming.
>>
>> Ah, Cluespotter, yer just jealous cuz I'm better at it than you are.
>
>
>hahahahahha Yeah, that's what it is, Slaggy.
I find it HIGHLY amusing that The Danimal, who coined the term, gets
zero feedback despite multiple attempts; yet when I use it, you go off
*every* **single** ***time***.
You might want to wonder why that is.
[...]
>Slaggy initiates the personal attack by calling me a lounge lizard.
geezo...that was months ago. way to reveal your delicate underbelly
to the world.
>I
>modestly suggest that she get a hobby...and naturally the psycho
>complains that personal comments are lame...
<rereads exchange>
Um....oic, it went over your head. I'll dumb it down for you:
One who spends all his free time sitting on his azz watching it
spread, pickling himself and asking for help on Usenet in how to go
about picking up sober women is in no position to take the high ground
via the "get a life" lame.
The Danimal
> On 5 Jul 2004 01:37:26 -0700, trainsp...@hotmail.com
> (Trainspotter) wrote in
> <25414bb1.04070...@posting.google.com>:
> >Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message
> >
> >hahahahahha Yeah, that's what it is, Slaggy.
>
> I find it HIGHLY amusing that The Danimal, who coined the term, gets
> zero feedback despite multiple attempts; yet when I use it, you go off
> *every* **single** ***time***.
>
> You might want to wonder why that is.
Well, duh. My writing style is different than
yours. Most of the time I write about ideas rather than
harping repetitively on real or imagined defects of the
person I'm replying to.
So when I do slip in the occasional implicit or explicit
personal dig, it's not the central thrust of my argument.
People can occasionally overlook an occasional lapse.
In contrast, when have you ever disagreed with someone (other
than me) without quickly degenerating into an endless volley of
silly, boring insults? Granted, most people lack the ability of,
say, a Dr. Chaos to focus on what is relevant, so they quickly
degenerate right along with you, and gleefully do their part
to help the useless threads continue.
Thus the average soc.singles thread consists of maybe two or
three articles with some content, followed by 50 articles of
people trading insults, in a way having nothing to do with
their putative Subject: lines.
When Trainspotter writes something you feel is incorrect,
instead of detailing your suspicions about Trainspotter's
personal flaws, try showing why Trainspotter's claim is
incorrect. For example, if he writes something about American
women being self-centered as a class, present some verifiable
evidence of the altruism of American women as a class, and
identify the beneficiaries of their altruism. The possibility
that Trainspotter is a lounge lizard has nothing to do with
a testable claim about American women. (On average, Americans
contribute about 1% of their income to charity. Even that
token gesture is magnanimous compared to sexual charity directed
at lounge lizards. From the point of view of a lounge lizard,
American women do not hand out freebies; rather, they guard
their eggs from potentially defective polyester-clad sperm
like their genetic survival depends on it. cbianco could
probably express this better and here's hoping he does.)
Hitler built the first freeway. Americans today do not
judge freeways according to where they came from. Try evaluating
Trainspotter's claims the way you evaluate a freeway.
-- the Danimal
Dr Chaos
> Hitler built the first freeway. Americans today do not
> judge freeways according to where they came from. Try evaluating
> Trainspotter's claims the way you evaluate a freeway.
hmm....
GENETICALLY INFERIOR TRAFFIC
STAY RIGHT
works for me
> -- the Danimal
Sharon B
<cac1ad88.04070...@posting.google.com>:
>Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message news:<m5gie0ld4mmsgndqq...@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Jul 2004 01:37:26 -0700, trainsp...@hotmail.com
>> (Trainspotter) wrote in
>> <25414bb1.04070...@posting.google.com>:
>> >Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message
>> >> Ah, Cluespotter, yer just jealous cuz I'm better at it than you are.
>> >
>> >hahahahahha Yeah, that's what it is, Slaggy.
>>
>> I find it HIGHLY amusing that The Danimal, who coined the term, gets
>> zero feedback despite multiple attempts; yet when I use it, you go off
>> *every* **single** ***time***.
>>
>> You might want to wonder why that is.
>
>Well, duh. My writing style is different than
>yours. Most of the time I write about ideas rather than
>harping repetitively on real or imagined defects of the
>person I'm replying to.
>
>So when I do slip in the occasional implicit or explicit
>personal dig, it's not the central thrust of my argument.
>People can occasionally overlook an occasional lapse.
hmmm. I figured it's because you're a guy. something I've noticed
alot in the incendiary groups. a full barrage from a guy--little
reaction. the slightest of disses from a woman--meltdown.
>In contrast, when have you ever disagreed with someone (other
>than me) without quickly degenerating into an endless volley of
>silly, boring insults?
you're not a f*ckhead
BORING??! Now THAT hurts.
Lots of times, depends on whether they're f*ckheads. Cudos to you for
ID'ing Trainspotter before I was able to.
>Granted, most people lack the ability of,
>say, a Dr. Chaos to focus on what is relevant, so they quickly
>degenerate right along with you,
I object. "they" almost *always* fire the first volley.
*sniff*
*I* degenerate with *them*.
[...]
>Thus the average soc.singles thread consists of maybe two or
>three articles with some content, followed by 50 articles of
>people trading insults, in a way having nothing to do with
>their putative Subject: lines.
but are they humorous?
>When Trainspotter writes something you feel is incorrect,
>instead of detailing your suspicions about Trainspotter's
>personal flaws, try showing why Trainspotter's claim is
>incorrect. For example, if he writes something about American
>women being self-centered as a class, present some verifiable
>evidence of the altruism of American women as a class, and
>identify the beneficiaries of their altruism.
you don't *really* think that would work, do you? he is clearly
bigoted against women and was openly slurping Sobolewski. there is
*nothing* I could say and no way I could say it that would have an
impact, being a 'too self-centered woman' and all.
>The possibility
>that Trainspotter is a lounge lizard
true arrow, more like.
>has nothing to do with
>a testable claim about American women. (On average, Americans
>contribute about 1% of their income to charity. Even that
>token gesture is magnanimous compared to sexual charity directed
>at lounge lizards. From the point of view of a lounge lizard,
>American women do not hand out freebies; rather, they guard
>their eggs from potentially defective polyester-clad sperm
>like their genetic survival depends on it.
thank you for that utterly revolting mental image. ick.
of course, you knew that before you hit "send".
Bill Gates and Jimmy Carter do a LOT of charitable work. That I do
not reap any direct results of that does not mean they are "too
self-centered".....unless *I* am too self-centered and only judging
them from *my* viewpoint.
>cbianco could
>probably express this better and here's hoping he does.)
another favorite read, he has a way with words.
>Hitler built the first freeway. Americans today do not
>judge freeways according to where they came from. Try evaluating
>Trainspotter's claims the way you evaluate a freeway.
exactly. full of holes.
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
<sha...@lart.com>, to say:
>BORING??! Now THAT hurts.
Show us your tits.
MMET572
"Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam" <sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in message
news:7akme01udjh1qiac8...@4ax.com...
You first.
DFooK
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
<MME...@rogers.com>, to say:
I'll have to have a picture made.
Watch this space.
Charlotte L. Blackmer
I have a digital camera now, in case you wish to reproduce certain aspects
of a memorable ride we took down El Camino Real some time back.
Helpfully,
Charlotte
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
"Charlotte L. Blackmer" <c...@rahul.net>, to say:
The next time we're colocated in Space & Time, I'll take it under
advisement.
cbianco
>Thus the average soc.singles thread consists of maybe two or
>three articles with some content, followed by 50 articles of
>people trading insults, in a way having nothing to do with
>their putative Subject: lines.
and here, dan excavates yet another yet-unseen reason why it's very
bad that frank zappa managed to die before he had a chance to become a
potential usenet addict. the above danimal-generated sentence wouldve
been an excellent random seed to plant inside the premise for the
never-to-be-realized sequel to the seminal "Honey Honey Hey-Yeah --
Baby Dont You Want A Man Like Me."
cbianco
'and the band was tight'
Sharon B
<sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in
<7akme01udjh1qiac8...@4ax.com>:
Why?
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
<sha...@lart.com>, to say:
>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 18:26:40 -0700, "Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam"
><sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in
><7akme01udjh1qiac8...@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 20:06:02 -0400, something compelled Sharon B
>><sha...@lart.com>, to say:
>>
>>>BORING??! Now THAT hurts.
>>
>>Show us your tits.
>
>Why?
The usual reasons.
Daedalus
(Steve Chaney, NR's Tormentor Ž), wrote:
Famous netkook Steve "Wonderbra" Chaney is dead. It is disrespectful
to mock him with these forgeries.
He was much funnier than you anyway.
Jade
mac
decision.
:)
mac
"Steve Chaney, NR's Tormentor ®" <gunh...@NRismykicktoy.pacbell.net> wrote
in message news:40f2b417....@enews.newsguy.com...
> In <cac1ad88.04070...@posting.google.com>, dmo...@mfm.com (The
> Danimal) wrote:
>
Admirral Ameriker
Jade, I agree with this here post. Obese lardass size 38 Darth Choad Steve
Chaney died last September after complications from choking on a
cheeseburger.
When he was alive, Steve Darth Choad Chaney was pathetic wideload GARBAGE
who was politely asked to leave college for failing to maintain a C
average. He was also politely asked to leave Usenet on account of being a
ragingly insane Usenet kook who hired an investigator to stalk his
ex-girlfriend, but sadly he refused.
Steve Chaney/Darth Choad forger, even though you are probably less garbage
than the real Steve Chaney, you have severe mental issues and should get
help.
HTH
>
> Jade
MMET572
"Steve Chaney, NR's Tormentor ? <gunh...@NRismykicktoy.pacbell.net> wrote
in message news:40f1b2d9....@enews.newsguy.com...
> In <DfJGc.24$wg3...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "MMET572"
> <MME...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam" <sdan...@gorge.net> wrote in message
>
> Hey there, nice family photo!
>
>
Thanks - that's about 1/3 of the immediate family though. :-)
DFooK
The Danimal
> On 6 Jul 2004 07:19:00 -0700, dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in
> <cac1ad88.04070...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message news:<m5gie0ld4mmsgndqq...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 5 Jul 2004 01:37:26 -0700, trainsp...@hotmail.com
> >> (Trainspotter) wrote in
> >> <25414bb1.04070...@posting.google.com>:
> >> >Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message
> >> >> Ah, Cluespotter, yer just jealous cuz I'm better at it than you are.
> >> >
> >> >hahahahahha Yeah, that's what it is, Slaggy.
> >>
> >> I find it HIGHLY amusing that The Danimal, who coined the term, gets
> >> zero feedback despite multiple attempts; yet when I use it, you go off
> >> *every* **single** ***time***.
> >>
> >> You might want to wonder why that is.
> >
> >Well, duh. My writing style is different than
> >yours. Most of the time I write about ideas rather than
> >harping repetitively on real or imagined defects of the
> >person I'm replying to.
> >
> >So when I do slip in the occasional implicit or explicit
> >personal dig, it's not the central thrust of my argument.
> >People can occasionally overlook an occasional lapse.
>
> hmmm. I figured it's because you're a guy. something I've noticed
> alot in the incendiary groups. a full barrage from a guy--little
> reaction. the slightest of disses from a woman--meltdown.
I suppose you could squeeze Steve Chaney, Miguel, and DFOOOOK
into your paradigm if you used sufficient force and a 55-gal
drum of astroglide.
You also seem like you might be suggesting you have seen a
"full barrage" from me. If so, hah.
> >In contrast, when have you ever disagreed with someone (other
> >than me) without quickly degenerating into an endless volley of
> >silly, boring insults?
>
> you're not a f*ckhead
Even when I'm writing to one.
> BORING??! Now THAT hurts.
Not half as much as trying to read those threads.
> Lots of times, depends on whether they're f*ckheads. Cudos to you for
> ID'ing Trainspotter before I was able to.
He has seemed to get more reasonable with time, though.
> >Granted, most people lack the ability of,
> >say, a Dr. Chaos to focus on what is relevant, so they quickly
> >degenerate right along with you,
>
> I object. "they" almost *always* fire the first volley.
Which invariably finds its mark.
> *sniff*
> *I* degenerate with *them*.
Given the questionable accuracy of their fire, they can only
play with people willing to act as very large targets.
> [...]
> >Thus the average soc.singles thread consists of maybe two or
> >three articles with some content, followed by 50 articles of
> >people trading insults, in a way having nothing to do with
> >their putative Subject: lines.
>
> but are they humorous?
As long as one joke stays funny.
Even the world's funniest people have to work pretty hard
to put together a relatively short standup routine.
> >When Trainspotter writes something you feel is incorrect,
> >instead of detailing your suspicions about Trainspotter's
> >personal flaws, try showing why Trainspotter's claim is
> >incorrect. For example, if he writes something about American
> >women being self-centered as a class, present some verifiable
> >evidence of the altruism of American women as a class, and
> >identify the beneficiaries of their altruism.
>
> you don't *really* think that would work, do you?
I really don't think it is possible. I guess I would
have to list "possible" as a necessary condition for
something to "work." Although the success of religion
would seem to be a counterexample.
> he is clearly bigoted against women
There are two kinds of men: those who are bigoted against
women, and those who pretend not to be.
The only workable solution for a man is to look forward
to the day when men will build something they can be
happy with. Once a man realizes that day will arrive
eventually, even if he might not live to see it, the
whole paradigm shifts. Basically the whole current
conflict of interest becomes silly, much like the wars
that were once fought over bird guano.
Back when bird shit was a vital strategic commodity,
even people who still had to fight wars over it could
have gained valuable perspective had they known the
Haber process was going to arrive eventually. They might
not have taken the bird shit wars so seriously.
> and was openly slurping Sobolewski. there is
> *nothing* I could say and no way I could say it that would have an
> impact, being a 'too self-centered woman' and all.
I concede all your limitations but not entirely for
the reason you suppose.
Your self-centeredness is not the problem, but how you
choose to practice it.
> >The possibility
> >that Trainspotter is a lounge lizard
>
> true arrow, more like.
I suspect no diamonds in this rough, but in the absence of
conclusive evidence I keep an open mind. Even when I feel
a heavy weight pressing down on the lid.
> >has nothing to do with
> >a testable claim about American women. (On average, Americans
> >contribute about 1% of their income to charity. Even that
> >token gesture is magnanimous compared to sexual charity directed
> >at lounge lizards. From the point of view of a lounge lizard,
> >American women do not hand out freebies; rather, they guard
> >their eggs from potentially defective polyester-clad sperm
> >like their genetic survival depends on it.
>
> thank you for that utterly revolting mental image. ick.
> of course, you knew that before you hit "send".
I understand your genetic programming, at least in that
respect.
As you feel the waves of nausea sweep over you, in between
heaves into the barf bag you might try to understand that
the revulsion is a manifestation of your self-centeredness.
Actually it's your genes which programmed you to serve
their interests, namely immortality with you as a temporary
stop.
> Bill Gates and Jimmy Carter do a LOT of charitable work.
That's how men of their stature convince society to
tolerate their extraordinary accumulation of wealth
and/or rank.
Bill Gates is just one guy. Believe it or not, in a democracy
voters could vote to appropriate even more of his money.
For a long time, Bill Gates was famously uncharitable. I
guess he started paying attention to the complaints.
> That I do
> not reap any direct results of that does not mean they are "too
> self-centered".....unless *I* am too self-centered and only judging
> them from *my* viewpoint.
I agree that a judgement of self-centeredness is
entirely subjective, but now I'm trying to understand
what you thought you were arguing with trainspotter
about.
If he finds women are too self-centered according to his
own agenda, on what basis can you question his finding?
Do you think he is mistaken in his perception of how
women fail to serve his agenda?
> >Hitler built the first freeway. Americans today do not
> >judge freeways according to where they came from. Try evaluating
> >Trainspotter's claims the way you evaluate a freeway.
>
> exactly. full of holes.
Do you refuse to drive on them?
-- the Danimal
Sharon B
<cac1ad88.0407...@posting.google.com>:
>Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message news:<nbfme0p6du0pgtl12...@4ax.com>...
>> On 6 Jul 2004 07:19:00 -0700, dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote in
>> <cac1ad88.04070...@posting.google.com>:
>>
>> >Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message news:<m5gie0ld4mmsgndqq...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 5 Jul 2004 01:37:26 -0700, trainsp...@hotmail.com
>> >> (Trainspotter) wrote in
>> >> <25414bb1.04070...@posting.google.com>:
>> >> >Sharon B <sha...@lart.com> wrote in message
[I repeat what you say, Cluespotter goes off]
>> hmmm. I figured it's because you're a guy. something I've noticed
>> alot in the incendiary groups. a full barrage from a guy--little
>> reaction. the slightest of disses from a woman--meltdown.
>
>I suppose you could squeeze Steve Chaney, Miguel, and DFOOOOK
>into your paradigm if you used sufficient force and a 55-gal
>drum of astroglide.
They're jiffy-pops; not sure why you put DFook in there, though.
>You also seem like you might be suggesting you have seen a
>"full barrage" from me. If so, hah.
I erred, I shouldn't have used the singular. Your problem is that you
refuse to lower your standards, thus many of your gems whizz straight
thru their ears, so subtle there's nothing to snag on the vestigial
stump within.
That's fine if that's what you wanted, "Bob" knows *I* appreciate
them.
>> >In contrast, when have you ever disagreed with someone (other
>> >than me) without quickly degenerating into an endless volley of
>> >silly, boring insults?
>>
>> you're not a f*ckhead
>
>Even when I'm writing to one.
I *know* that wasn't meant in reference to moi.
>> BORING??! Now THAT hurts.
>
>Not half as much as trying to read those threads.
Well, Dan--if my posts are all that boring, you could always opt not
to read them. That's what I do with most all of Chaney's and Cretin's
output.
>> Lots of times, depends on whether they're f*ckheads. Cudos to you for
>> ID'ing Trainspotter before I was able to.
>
>He has seemed to get more reasonable with time, though.
<grin>
I have a different take. IMHO, he's struggling his l'il heart out
trying to out-logic you. Funny stuff, from where I sit.
>> >Granted, most people lack the ability of,
>> >say, a Dr. Chaos to focus on what is relevant, so they quickly
>> >degenerate right along with you,
>>
>> I object. "they" almost *always* fire the first volley.
>
>Which invariably finds its mark.
No, I'm just not opposed to reaching out to catch it as it flies past.
It would just be plain RUDE to ignore their efforts.
>> *sniff*
>> *I* degenerate with *them*.
>
>Given the questionable accuracy of their fire, they can only
>play with people willing to act as very large targets.
It is my belief that lots of folk *are* very large targets, not just
playing one on Usenet.
[use of logic to argue with Cluespotter]
>> you don't *really* think that would work, do you?
>
>I really don't think it is possible. I guess I would
>have to list "possible" as a necessary condition for
>something to "work." Although the success of religion
>would seem to be a counterexample.
>
>> he is clearly bigoted against women
>
>There are two kinds of men: those who are bigoted against
>women, and those who pretend not to be.
Is that fair? I know many men who, if they're pretending, are also
fooling themselves. While I'm sure there are women who unfairly want
a hand to help them up, there are also quite a few that do not--they
just don't want someone standing in their way.
[...]
>> and was openly slurping Sobolewski. there is
>> *nothing* I could say and no way I could say it that would have an
>> impact, being a 'too self-centered woman' and all.
>
>I concede all your limitations but not entirely for
>the reason you suppose.
>
>Your self-centeredness is not the problem, but how you
>choose to practice it.
That was not his argument; nor would I have called him on it if he had
said all people are selfish, for they assuredly are.
>> >The possibility
>> >that Trainspotter is a lounge lizard
>>
>> true arrow, more like.
>
>I suspect no diamonds in this rough, but in the absence of
>conclusive evidence I keep an open mind. Even when I feel
>a heavy weight pressing down on the lid.
That's too drafty leaving all the doors open all the time.
[the polyester clad sperm of lounge lizards swimming around looking
for a home]
>> thank you for that utterly revolting mental image. ick.
>> of course, you knew that before you hit "send".
>
>I understand your genetic programming, at least in that
>respect.
>
>As you feel the waves of nausea sweep over you, in between
>heaves into the barf bag you might try to understand that
>the revulsion is a manifestation of your self-centeredness.
>Actually it's your genes which programmed you to serve
>their interests, namely immortality with you as a temporary
>stop.
>
>> Bill Gates and Jimmy Carter do a LOT of charitable work.
>
>That's how men of their stature convince society to
>tolerate their extraordinary accumulation of wealth
>and/or rank.
>
>Bill Gates is just one guy. Believe it or not, in a democracy
>voters could vote to appropriate even more of his money.
>
>For a long time, Bill Gates was famously uncharitable. I
>guess he started paying attention to the complaints.
or maybe he just wanted to give back?
>> That I do
>> not reap any direct results of that does not mean they are "too
>> self-centered".....unless *I* am too self-centered and only judging
>> them from *my* viewpoint.
>
>I agree that a judgement of self-centeredness is
>entirely subjective, but now I'm trying to understand
>what you thought you were arguing with trainspotter
>about.
>
>If he finds women are too self-centered according to his
>own agenda, on what basis can you question his finding?
>Do you think he is mistaken in his perception of how
>women fail to serve his agenda?
You have altered his argument. It was not confined to women being too
stingy to share their vaginas with him--nor would he say that even if
that was his true thrust, because he's smart enough to realize what a
stupid loser it would make him appear; it was American women being too
self-centered to spare time for concern over the welfare of another
woman in dire circumstances (and by extrapolation, any
less-fortunate). 'Tis especially hypocritical of him. Before he
takes the high ground, he should provide examples of his altruism.
>> >Hitler built the first freeway. Americans today do not
>> >judge freeways according to where they came from. Try evaluating
>> >Trainspotter's claims the way you evaluate a freeway.
>>
>> exactly. full of holes.
>
>Do you refuse to drive on them?
I-71 to Blue Ash and beyond I did, for many years. yegads.
so...how do you feel about gravel roads? cars can't exactly zip along
those (well, they *can*--and it's usually funny to watch). not that a
car going 15 mph isn't still a lethal weapon, just less of a risk at
slower speeds.
though IIRC, gravel stings a darn site more than blacktop.
Ray Gordon
> i've never expressed 'sexual revulsion' toward Trainspotter.
> For one thing, I've never seen him, and most importantly, i'm engaged so i
aint
> on the market.
Let's note that if her marriage leads to divorce, there was literally no way
that she could have prevented it at this point.
Ray Gordon
shit, since she'd be admitting to settling (i.e., staying with the inferior
man out of loyalty even though the other was superior).
--
"I ain't gonna play Sun City" and the world's best chessplayers should not
play Libya, which banned the Israeli players from competing. Shame on the
Americans who went!
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers
http://www.cybersheet.com/6/ubb.x
The Seduction Library Forum
My IRC chat channel: freenode.net #seduction
"The Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
news:cac1ad88.0406...@posting.google.com...
> GoddessBaybee <goddes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<cbnuc...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > In article <cac1ad88.04062...@posting.google.com>, The
Danimal
> > says...
> > >
> > >trainsp...@hotmail.com (Trainspotter) wrote in message
> >
> > >> Oh, sorry. Not sure what happened there. Had a Danimal moment. lol
> > >
> > >I feel your pain.
> > >
> > >How did it feel to be sexually repulsive to GoddessBaybee for
> > >a moment? Did you find yourself yearning for the future golden
> > >age of sexbots?
> >
> > um...danimal,
> > what are ya talking aboot?
>
> You helpfully quoted enough of the context to answer your
> own question: I was talking about Trainspotter's Danimal moment.
> Because I am the Danimal, I have some insight into what a
> Danimal moment is like.
>
> I thought that would be pretty clear thanks to the power of
> editing, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. Do you have some
> severe limitation of short-term memory that prevents you from
> seeing that a sentence which follows another sentence can
> extend the thoughts behind the first sentence?
>
> If I were a good comedy writer, I would know how to explain
> just enough of a joke to make it understandable and yet still
> be funny. But I'm not, so I have to live with confusing
> people who don't think like I do. (I was tempted to omit the
> "like I do" part, but I'm feeling generous today.)
>
> > this is NOT the first time you've rejected guys on my behalf,
> > and this little habit of yours seems quite weird.
>
> What, could you actually see yourself having sex with a man
> who writes like I do?
>
> Or does it annoy you that I would deprive you of some of the
> pleasure you get from rejecting men, by rejecting them for
> you? lol.
>
> > i've never expressed 'sexual revulsion' toward Trainspotter.
>
> Is it within your intellectual capacity to imagine that when
> Trainspotter wrote "Danimal moment. lol" he was using a figure
> of speech for humorous effect?
>
> What exactly does "lol" mean to you?
>
> And when I played along with Trainspotter's gag by drawing
> some inferences from it, can you imagine my inferences might
> not be sober assertions about the detailed state of reality
> with Sobolewskian certainty?
>
> > For one thing, I've never seen him, and most importantly,
> > i'm engaged so i aint on the market.
>
> A good percentage of rejections are due to women not being on
> the market, so I'm not sure what you are driving at there.
> You seem to be trying to equate revulsion with rejection.
> A sustained feeling of revulsion can certainly be grounds
> for rejecting someone, but revulsion is neither necessary
> nor sufficient for rejection. Put on your thinking cap:
>
> 1. Not necessary: you can reject someone even if you find
> him attractive, for any number of reasons (you're already
> taken, he doesn't fit into your life plans, etc.). I'm not
> saying you personally have done this or would do this,
> because I don't know your life history, but others have
> walked away from partners or potential partners they found
> attractive enough to enjoy having (or keep having) sex with.
>
> 2. Not sufficient: you can find someone sexually repulsive
> for a moment, then find him sexually attractive at other times,
> and act on that attraction. Few people are turned on by another
> person 100% of the time 24/7/365. The fact that we have concepts
> of "date rape" and "marital rape" shows that even when a woman
> finds a man sexually attractive under certain conditions, at
> other times she may find sex with him to be unappealing,
> bothersome, or even horrifying.
>
> -- the Danimal
Varizo
>Sharon B is incapable of documenting any of her claims. I engaged her in a
>debate about domestic violence and posted Government research stats proving
>women commit DV just as often. Sharon B blanketly declared it bogus and
>retreated behind her verbal wall of fire.
Ive had similar sorts of rubbish from ppl in diffrent NGs, my mother is a violent
bully and use to beat up my Dad and me, and somtimes he would hit her back in
retalliation or to deffend me, when i told sombody on the intnernett about it, some
bloke and some woman who calls herself a femminist, called my Dad a violent
missoginist, and dodged round the fact of my mother being violent, all that they kept
on about was slagging off my Dad and trying to look for *reaons* for my mothers
behaviour cos they wanted to make exscuses for her. Then they called me a missonginist
as well [probaly cos id dared to talk about it, and they cant stand to see anything
said against any woman, no matter how horribal she is], they will always look for ways
to deffend women even if she is a realy horribal person, i cant understand that way of
thinkiing, cos to me, i treat ppl equal and if a woman is a hateful bastard then i,ll
say so, but some ppl think that u should never say anything crittickal about any woman
or it *proves* that your a missoginist, the femminists are suposed to believe in
equalitty, but some of these women dont believe in *real* equialitty cos they think
that they should be treated *better* than men, like with more respect and with
allowances made for them if they act like evil scumbags, and to me, if sombody is a
cunt then i,ll say so, regardless of wot sex that they are, and to me that is true
equalitty but they dont see it like that, ive even had to lissten to some of these
femminsists say that if a woman beats up a man then good for her cos he probaly
deserved it anyway even tho they kno nothing at all about the actual realitty of the
situation.
V.