stepford wives will happen but what about robo love?
Benny Fitzoffheinseit
real with robot wife but will simply get a robot wife. and women will
ger a robot hubby. this way, everyone can order and purchase their
ideal mate. you can order a spouse that looks just like nicol kidman,
lopez, or julia roberts.
the question is what if a studbot that belongs to a woman and a ho'bot
that belongs to a man fall in love with eachother? by law, the robots
would belong to humans like chattel. but what if two robots wanna
elope?
would they be doomed like dekker and sean young android in blade
runner?
i wonder if robots can be made to conceive and have babies. have like
artifical wombs or artificial insemination sperm with only the best
genetic quality.
John Adcox
___
John Adcox
Click below for Mythology, Philosophy, Literature, Writing References and more.
http://jadcox.home.mindspring.com
Justin
news:f40c70a.04062...@posting.google.com:
> the movie got it all wrong. in the future, men will not replace their
> real with robot wife but will simply get a robot wife. and women will
> ger a robot hubby. this way, everyone can order and purchase their
> ideal mate. you can order a spouse that looks just like nicol kidman,
> lopez, or julia roberts.
I'd order a girl who looks just like Neve Campbell (white Canadian actress
from 'Party of Five'). Lot of people get her confused with Naomi Campbell
(the anerexic black model). Anyway, I'd order my Neve lookalike with a few
special mods -- a bubble butt, ala Jennifer Lopez, extra pubic hair (bush
for miles) and I'd pay extra to have 20 years of medical school training
programmed into my "Neve" since I'm sort of a hypocondriac. What's your
dream gal?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Steven J. Weller
Justin <justin1138@REMOVEnet> wrote:
> bennyfito...@hotmail.com (Benny Fitzoffheinseit) wrote in
> news:f40c70a.04062...@posting.google.com:
>
> > the movie got it all wrong. in the future, men will not replace their
> > real with robot wife but will simply get a robot wife. and women will
> > ger a robot hubby. this way, everyone can order and purchase their
> > ideal mate. you can order a spouse that looks just like nicol kidman,
> > lopez, or julia roberts.
>
> I'd order a girl who looks just like Neve Campbell (white Canadian actress
> from 'Party of Five'). Lot of people get her confused with Naomi Campbell
> (the anerexic black model). Anyway, I'd order my Neve lookalike with a few
> special mods -- a bubble butt, ala Jennifer Lopez, extra pubic hair (bush
> for miles) and I'd pay extra to have 20 years of medical school training
> programmed into my "Neve" since I'm sort of a hypocondriac. What's your
> dream gal?
You might check out http//www.realdoll.com
Seems kinda' creepy to me, but... whatever floats your boat.
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
stePH
> i wonder if robots can be made to conceive and have babies.
ObAnime: _Armitage III_
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
Justin
news:az941-B1F237....@individual.net:
Sure, a blow up sex doll is creepy. I never said I'd want a blow up sex
doll. We were talking about synthetic android, lifelike women, as in
the Stepford Wives. Of course it's all theory now, but might be reality
within 50 years or so. Wouldn't it be cool to pick your dreamgal?
choose her appearance, her personality, make her a concert pianist,
programmed to be a gourmet cook, no bad attitude, no PMS, no propensity
to spend $500 on a dress, etc. It's nice to dream.
Scott Robinson
Fitzoffheinseit) wrote:
Scott Adams (the guy who draws Dilbert) has made at least one
prediction for the future:
"The last thing invented will be virtual reality." The idea being
similar to the Red Dwarf "Better than life": Who will voluntarily
leave an optimal virtual reality?
Scott
Steven J. Weller
Justin <justin1138@REMOVEnet> wrote:
> "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
>
> > You might check out http//www.realdoll.com
> >
> > Seems kinda' creepy to me, but... whatever floats your boat.
>
> Sure, a blow up sex doll is creepy. I never said I'd want a blow up sex
> doll. We were talking about synthetic android, lifelike women, as in
> the Stepford Wives. Of course it's all theory now, but might be reality
> within 50 years or so. Wouldn't it be cool to pick your dreamgal?
> choose her appearance, her personality, make her a concert pianist,
> programmed to be a gourmet cook, no bad attitude, no PMS, no propensity
> to spend $500 on a dress, etc. It's nice to dream.
Still seems pretty creepy to me. You can still buy a slave if you
really want to (and are willing to spend the money), who will be as
Stepford-ish as you might desire, but isn't there something about a
relationship that's supposed to be about give-and-take? Seems like most
people outgrow the fantasy of a walking, talking sex doll that doesn't
ever have a contrary opinion when they're in their mid-teens.
Wayne Throop
:: sex doll. We were talking about synthetic android, lifelike women,
:: as in the Stepford Wives. Of course it's all theory now, but might
:: be reality within 50 years or so. Wouldn't it be cool to pick your
:: dreamgal? choose her appearance, her personality, make her a concert
:: pianist, programmed to be a gourmet cook, no bad attitude, no PMS, no
:: propensity to spend $500 on a dress, etc. It's nice to dream.
: "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org>
: Still seems pretty creepy to me. You can still buy a slave if you
: really want to (and are willing to spend the money), who will be as
: Stepford-ish as you might desire, but isn't there something about a
: relationship that's supposed to be about give-and-take? Seems like
: most people outgrow the fantasy of a walking, talking sex doll that
: doesn't ever have a contrary opinion when they're in their mid-teens.
What's creepy to me isn't the sex-with-an-android issue, or even
synthetic companionship. A bit distasteful in some contexts, but
not creepy.
What IS creepy to me is the fact that in the movie a) all those husbands
were willing to commit cold-blooded murder more or less because they
wanted a sex toy, and b) there were several places where they portrayed
it as simply tuning up their spouse, as if killing the original wasn't
an issue. As in "do you blame me for wanting to change some things about
my wife?". Well duh, no, I don't, I blame you for *killing* her. Yeesh.
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No, I expect you to *die*, Mr Bond."
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Anthony Buckland
> ...
>
>What IS creepy to me is the fact that in the movie a) all those husbands
>were willing to commit cold-blooded murder more or less because they
>wanted a sex toy, and b) there were several places where they portrayed
>it as simply tuning up their spouse, as if killing the original wasn't
>an issue. As in "do you blame me for wanting to change some things about
>my wife?". Well duh, no, I don't, I blame you for *killing* her. Yeesh.
>
>
>
...
SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Did you _see_ the movie? They weren't androids, they were if
anything mildly cyborged human women, and removing their
programming restored them to normal.
John Adcox
I'm sitting here, slackjawed and stunned, with no idea how to even begin to
reply to that.
John G. Morrison
news:20040625003705...@mb-m21.aol.com:
Unfortunately true. My local church recently raised funds to go into
Sudan and buy a number of slaves and set them free. Slavery is alive
and very unwell, even in this day and age.
Wayne Throop
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
: Anthony Buckland <buck...@direct.ca>
: Did you _see_ the movie? They weren't androids, they were if anything
: mildly cyborged human women, and removing their programming restored
: them to normal.
Which movie? I meant the original, with Katherine Ross.
Am I misremembering the crucial scenes with the robot-ross
chasing-with-intent-to-kill-and-replace the human-ross?
And in which I don't remember seeing ANY recoveries?
William December Starr
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) said:
>> Did you _see_ the movie? They weren't androids, they were if
>> anything mildly cyborged human women, and removing their
>> programming restored them to normal. [Anthony Buckland]
>
> Which movie? I meant the original, with Katherine Ross.
> Am I misremembering the crucial scenes with the robot-ross
> chasing-with-intent-to-kill-and-replace the human-ross?
> And in which I don't remember seeing ANY recoveries?
He's talking about the remake that's currently in the theaters.
"Murder your wife and replace her with a lookalike android" has been
replaced by "Implant a control chip in her brain" this time around,
apparently.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Robert Carnegie
Benny Fitzoffheinseit <bennyfito...@hotmail.com> writes
I have several intelligent reactions to this presentation of ideas.
One of those reactions is that posting across newsgroups is
mischief which I do not wish to encourage, so you lose out on
sharing my interesting thoughts. Too bad.
I will add, though, that these ideas have been explored further in
other movies, books, and TV shows besides _Blade Runner_ and
_Stepford Wives_
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
Mark Atwood
>
> Unfortunately true. My local church recently raised funds to go into
> Sudan and buy a number of slaves and set them free. Slavery is alive
> and very unwell, even in this day and age.
ROPMA
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@pobox.com | you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra | http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
Callisto
> Benny Fitzoffheinseit wrote:
>
> > i wonder if robots can be made to conceive and have babies.
>
> ObAnime: _Armitage III_
>
> stePH
But why would they want to have babies? Isn't the idea of a Stepford
Wife one who will fulfill your fantasies and never act in ways that
contradit it? Why have a baby who will grow up to someone who will
not follow the script and contradict you, and the rest? Take also into
account that your fantasy playmate does probably does not have the
wherewithal to help you cope, since parenting skills were not included
in the recipe for ideal playmate.
No, it is better that someone who wants to mate with a perfect fantasy
should not reproduce. Spare him hearbreak, and spare the child a lousy
upbringing.
stePH
> But why would they want to have babies? Isn't the idea of a Stepford
> Wife one who will fulfill your fantasies and never act in ways that
> contradit it? Why have a baby who will grow up to someone who will
> not follow the script and contradict you, and the rest? Take also into
> account that your fantasy playmate does probably does not have the
> wherewithal to help you cope, since parenting skills were not included
> in the recipe for ideal playmate.
>
> No, it is better that someone who wants to mate with a perfect fantasy
> should not reproduce. Spare him hearbreak, and spare the child a lousy
> upbringing.
I don't know. Ask somebody interested in children.
Michael Grosberg
I haven't seen any of the versions, but I have to admit (gasp!) that
the remake sounds much more plausible. Was the original some kind of
comedy or satire?
Dreamer
news:c21d3ba0.04062...@posting.google.com...
Actually, the *remake* is comedic. The original was sort of a
horror/suspense thing. (The endings of the movies are markedly different.)
It's based on a book by Ira Levin which is allegedly a reaction to the
feminist movement.
I haven't seen the remake but I have read extensive reviews. I understand
that at one point one of the chipped wives puts her hands on a hot stove and
isn't burned. How a control chip in her brain makes her still-human skin
fireproof, I'm sure I don't know. Maybe she forgot which movie she was in.
D
Paul F Austin
"Justin" <justin1138@REMOVEnet> wrote in message
news:Xns9512A85BCD81Fju...@209.25.157.130...
Don't fool yourself. It_is_a blowup rubber dolly.
When I saw the first make of the Stepford Wives, with Catherine Ross and
Paula Prentis, it creeped me out most because of the notion of husbands
being willing to trade in marvelous women like these for walking, talking,
fucking refrigerators. And willing to kill the originals.
Lets be real. Some men are willing to trade in high mileage wife for the
newest sweet young thing. The NSYT is trading her youth and pliancy for
money and we know what_he's_buying. Murdering your wife is an entirely
different scale of creepiness.
As far as picking your dream girl, I_did_and have lived happily ever after
with a woman who isn't my creation, chattel or appendage. She gets out of
sorts but so do I. She buys jewels, I buy books and guns. It all evens out.
If all you want is a fuck-buddy, by all means go out and rent one. It'll be
lots cheaper for you than buying (marrying) one.
Paul F Austin
"William December Starr" wrote
> (Wayne Throop) said:
>
> >> Did you _see_ the movie? They weren't androids, they were if
> >> anything mildly cyborged human women, and removing their
> >> programming restored them to normal. [Anthony Buckland]
> >
> > Which movie? I meant the original, with Katherine Ross.
> > Am I misremembering the crucial scenes with the robot-ross
> > chasing-with-intent-to-kill-and-replace the human-ross?
> > And in which I don't remember seeing ANY recoveries?
>
> He's talking about the remake that's currently in the theaters.
> "Murder your wife and replace her with a lookalike android" has been
> replaced by "Implant a control chip in her brain" this time around,
> apparently.
I'd say that kind of slavery is if anything, worse.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:m2XCc.25866$Y3.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> "Michael Grosberg" <preac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c21d3ba0.04062...@posting.google.com...
>...
>> I haven't seen any of the versions, but I have to admit (gasp!)
>> that the remake sounds much more plausible. Was the original
>> some kind of comedy or satire?
> Actually, the *remake* is comedic. The original was sort of a
> horror/suspense thing. (The endings of the movies are markedly
> different.) It's based on a book by Ira Levin which is allegedly
> a reaction to the feminist movement.
More a reaction to the reaction. The book is essentially a horror
extrapolation of what (some) women feared men really wanted. The
tone of the book itself is fairly clearly pro-feminist; it's the
awfulness of the idea that even the most apparently modern and
supportive guy really wants a Stepford wife that the book draws its
impact from. It's an example of the paranoia-made-real, "no,
really, they *are* all out to get you" school of horror. It struck
me as quite well done, though I don't read enough horror to really
have a sense of where it falls in that range.
The plausibility, such as it is, is that of a nightmare rather than
a purely realistic story. The clues are laid as to what's going on
fairly neatly, but let's just say that the technological
speculation is fully part of the paranoid fantasy.
> I haven't seen the remake but I have read extensive reviews. I
> understand that at one point one of the chipped wives puts her
> hands on a hot stove and isn't burned. How a control chip in her
> brain makes her still-human skin fireproof, I'm sure I don't
> know.
There's also a scene in the commercials showing a partially
completed android (no hair, made up to look plasticish) opening its
eyes. (One of Ebert or Roeper commented on their show that this
didn't seem to mesh with the chip explanation.) But I haven't seen
the movie either.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Duke of URL
news:89dcabe3.04062...@posting.google.com...
Heh. Why do you say "him" when it's WOMEN who are the fantasists convincing
themselves they'll "improve" their husbands-to-be? Men know: What We See Is
What We'll Get (especially if we're smart enough to take a look at their
mothers).
--
The One-and-only Holy MosesT
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>"Callisto" <rx...@psu.edu> wrote in message
>news:89dcabe3.04062...@posting.google.com...
>> No, it is better that someone who wants to mate with a perfect fantasy
>> should not reproduce. Spare him hearbreak, and spare the child a lousy
>> upbringing.
>
>Heh. Why do you say "him" when it's WOMEN who are the fantasists convincing
>themselves they'll "improve" their husbands-to-be? Men know: What We See Is
>What We'll Get (especially if we're smart enough to take a look at their
>mothers).
"Women marry men in the hope that they'll change. Men marry women in
the hope that they won't. Both are misguided."
--Craig
--
Craig Richardson (Homepage <http://crichard-tacoma.home.att.net>)
"when you move into a new energy source you have to assume there's going
to be some environmental impact,"
-- Jeremy Rifkin renounces the Precautionary Principle
Wayne Throop
: If all you want is a fuck-buddy, by all means go out and rent one.
I expect most stepford-husband-wannabes also want a status trophy.
Which is a tad hard to rent; part of the status of BMWs and wives
comes from ownership.
Though granted, only part.
Wayne Throop
: I understand that at one point one of the chipped wives puts her hands
: on a hot stove and isn't burned. How a control chip in her brain
: makes her still-human skin fireproof, I'm sure I don't know. Maybe
: she forgot which movie she was in.
Pumped up sweat production to superhuman levels
on that patch of skin during the time in contact.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:p8ZCc.1159$bi7....@bignews2.bellsouth.net:
> "William December Starr" wrote
>...
>> He's talking about the remake that's currently in the theaters.
>> "Murder your wife and replace her with a lookalike android" has
>> been replaced by "Implant a control chip in her brain" this
>> time around, apparently.
> I'd say that kind of slavery is if anything, worse.
Except insofar as it's potentially reversible and the other isn't.
(Which isn't to deny that any penalty, up to and including capital,
would be appropriate to any slaver who subjected someone to it.)
Wayne Throop
:: replaced by "Implant a control chip in her brain" this time around,
:: apparently.
: "Paul F Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net>
: I'd say that kind of slavery is if anything, worse.
Is brainwashing worse than murder? Is hypnotism? Drug-assisted
hypnotism? Clockwork Orange style conditioning? Manchurian candidate
style? How about a self-help course? EST? Tony Robbins? Madison Avenue?
Subliminal coke ads?
IMO, the reversability of the process is crucial.
"When you take away a man's life, you take away everything he has,
and everything he's ever going to have", and all that.
The opposite is arguable as well, of course. But on the whole,
I'd tend to say at least *some* forms of mind control are quite
a bit less heinous than murder. There are degrees of mind control,
and reversability, but dead is dead (Miracle Max notwithstanding).
Michael S. Schiffer
news:89dcabe3.04062...@posting.google.com:
>> > i wonder if robots can be made to conceive and have babies.
> Stepford Wife one who will fulfill your fantasies and never act
> in ways that contradit it?
The original idea of a Stepford wife was one who perfectly fit a
particular fantasy: house in the suburbs, white picket fence, 2.3
children, and a wife who is deliriously happy to keep all of the
above clean and well-functioning, while remaining agelessly
beautiful (that itself in a stereotyped way-- whenever a woman is
replaced in the book, someone notices that her breasts are both
larger and better-supported), cheerful, and enthusiastic in bed.
The comparison is explicitly made, more than once, to housewives on
TV commercials, which were presumably one source of the insecurity
Levin built his story on. Kids were very much part of that deal,
with the Stepford wife functioning to keep the husband isolated
from any trauma or conflict and allowing him to have an idealized
family life. And the fact that the replacements couldn't have kids
is why the Stepford husbands didn't just start out with them in the
first place (aside from the fact that the men probably didn't know
about the option until they moved to Stepford or just before).
The extent to which that would have worked might be questioned if
this were a more realistic story. But even so, the neighborhood is
all preteen kids at the time of the book, and the replacements are
seamlessly undetectably different from humans in a way that suits
the horror story that it is better than, say, near-future SF set in
the 1970s. It also hasn't been going on all that long-- if it
turns out not to work out for the husbands in the long run, that
won't do their original wives any good.
RogerM
What was marvelous about them?
> for walking, talking,
> fucking refrigerators. And willing to kill the originals.
>
When men think it's safer to kill their wive than divorce them, there's
something wrong with divorce laws.
> Lets be real. Some men are willing to trade in high mileage wife for the
> newest sweet young thing. The NSYT is trading her youth and pliancy for
> money and we know what_he's_buying. Murdering your wife is an entirely
> different scale of creepiness.
>
> As far as picking your dream girl, I_did_and have lived happily ever after
> with a woman who isn't my creation, chattel or appendage. She gets out of
> sorts but so do I. She buys jewels, I buy books and guns. It all evens out.
>
> If all you want is a fuck-buddy, by all means go out and rent one. It'll be
> lots cheaper for you than buying (marrying) one.
It's illegal to rent one.
--
Ross TenEyck
>"Dreamer" <dre...@dreamstrike.com> wrote in
>news:m2XCc.25866$Y3.1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>> Actually, the *remake* is comedic. The original was sort of a
>> horror/suspense thing. (The endings of the movies are markedly
>> different.) It's based on a book by Ira Levin which is allegedly
>> a reaction to the feminist movement.
>More a reaction to the reaction. The book is essentially a horror
>extrapolation of what (some) women feared men really wanted. The
>tone of the book itself is fairly clearly pro-feminist; it's the
>awfulness of the idea that even the most apparently modern and
>supportive guy really wants a Stepford wife that the book draws its
>impact from. It's an example of the paranoia-made-real, "no,
>really, they *are* all out to get you" school of horror. It struck
>me as quite well done, though I don't read enough horror to really
>have a sense of where it falls in that range.
Someday, perhaps, I'll get around to writing that Ranma 1/2 fanfic
I thought of, "The Stepford Akane."
>> I haven't seen the remake but I have read extensive reviews. I
>> understand that at one point one of the chipped wives puts her
>> hands on a hot stove and isn't burned. How a control chip in her
>> brain makes her still-human skin fireproof, I'm sure I don't
>> know.
>There's also a scene in the commercials showing a partially
>completed android (no hair, made up to look plasticish) opening its
>eyes. (One of Ebert or Roeper commented on their show that this
>didn't seem to mesh with the chip explanation.) But I haven't seen
>the movie either.
Apparently there's also a scene where a guy swipes an ATM card
through his wife's mouth, and she spits out a twenty dollar bill.
That doesn't make sense even if she *is* a robot, rather than a
chip-controlled human; but they were clearly going for comedy
rather than sense.
I've also heard speculation that the inconsistencies between robot/
human-with-chip were the result of last-minute rewrites of the script.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Justin
>> It'll be lots cheaper for you than buying (marrying) one.
>
> It's illegal to rent one.
By renting, I assume you mean "dating". Dating isn't cheap either. $50
for dinner, $25 for a movie and munchies, so on. Not illegal to rent
one in Nevada. Brothels are legal outside the city limits. I normally
don't like to pay for sex, but I've gone to a few brothels on trips to
Reno or Vegas. It's kinda cool to see a "lineup", where all the ladies
come out and stand in front of you, and you choose. The typical Barbie
doll types can ask for/and get a lot more money. I like the girl next
door types with some curves. They don't charge as much. Also, don't
think of this as abuse of women. These women make a ton of money. Some
make enough money in 2 months to live off of for a year. They're
treated real well, also. As with any form of business, once it's legal,
it becomes a lot cleaner and safer for everyone. (Drugs should be
legalized also.) These brothel women aren't $30 crack addicted whores
up in Michigan. A lot of them are even married with children. They'd
just rather work a couple months a year instead of in factory ALL year.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Paul F Austin
"RogerM" wrote
> Paul F Austin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't fool yourself. It_is_a blowup rubber dolly.
> >
> > When I saw the first make of the Stepford Wives, with Catherine Ross and
> > Paula Prentis, it creeped me out most because of the notion of husbands
> > being willing to trade in marvelous women like these
>
> What was marvelous about them?
At the time, I had serious lust for Catherine Ross and a plastic version
squicked me right out.
Christopher Adams
> John G. Morrison writes:
>>
>> Unfortunately true. My local church recently raised funds to go into
>> Sudan and buy a number of slaves and set them free. Slavery is alive
>> and very unwell, even in this day and age.
>
> ROPMA
[*]
Religion Of Peace My Ass?
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nath Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
You're not a bad person. You're a terrific person. You're my favorite person.
But every once in a while you just can be a real cunt.
- Bill
Christopher Adams
>
> By renting, I assume you mean "dating". Dating isn't cheap either. $50
> for dinner, $25 for a movie and munchies, so on. Not illegal to rent
> one in Nevada. Brothels are legal outside the city limits. I normally
> don't like to pay for sex, but I've gone to a few brothels on trips to
> Reno or Vegas. It's kinda cool to see a "lineup", where all the ladies
> come out and stand in front of you, and you choose. The typical Barbie
> doll types can ask for/and get a lot more money. I like the girl next
> door types with some curves. They don't charge as much.
TMI.
Callisto
In short a fantasy by someone who does not have the slightest idea
what raising children is like. Or who does not think much about
children at all. Maybe has some vague idea of cute babies, and thinks
that children stay at the same age forever, doing childlish things. No
one else would think that turning child raising over to a machine is a
sensible thing to do.
And of course, children do not take well to being an afterthought, and
do not conform to the fantasy elders have of them, and that is where a
lot of conflict between the generations come from.
Paul F Austin
"Christopher Adams" wrote ...
> Justin wrote:
> >
> > By renting, I assume you mean "dating". Dating isn't cheap either. $50
> > for dinner, $25 for a movie and munchies, so on. Not illegal to rent
> > one in Nevada. Brothels are legal outside the city limits. I normally
> > don't like to pay for sex, but I've gone to a few brothels on trips to
> > Reno or Vegas. It's kinda cool to see a "lineup", where all the ladies
> > come out and stand in front of you, and you choose. The typical Barbie
> > doll types can ask for/and get a lot more money. I like the girl next
> > door types with some curves. They don't charge as much.
>
> TMI.
Actually, just enough. I don't think Justin understands how much he's
revealed about himself. Google's a girl's best friend these days.
Christopher Adams
>
> In short a fantasy by someone who does not have the slightest idea
> what raising children is like. Or who does not think much about
> children at all. Maybe has some vague idea of cute babies, and thinks
> that children stay at the same age forever, doing childlish things. No
> one else would think that turning child raising over to a machine is a
> sensible thing to do.
>
> And of course, children do not take well to being an afterthought, and
> do not conform to the fantasy elders have of them, and that is where a
> lot of conflict between the generations come from.
Oh, for Athena's sake.
If you can't read and understand the thread, please don't contribute to it.
Nancy Lebovitz
John G. Morrison <Laby...@eskim-remove-o.com> wrote:
>jad...@aol.com (John Adcox) wrote in
>news:20040625003705...@mb-m21.aol.com:
>
>> << Still seems pretty creepy to me. You can still buy a slave if you
>> really want to (and are willing to spend the money) >><BR><BR>
>>
>> I'm sitting here, slackjawed and stunned, with no idea how to even
>> begin to reply to that.
>>
>Unfortunately true. My local church recently raised funds to go into
>Sudan and buy a number of slaves and set them free. Slavery is alive
>and very unwell, even in this day and age.
Also note that illegal immigrants are sometimes enslaved--I'm not sure
whether they're typically bought or trapped.
_Disposable People_ estimates that there are 20-odd million slaves.
Imho, there's very little innate inhibition against slave-owning--the
fact that it's pretty rare these days is a result of social pressure
and illegality.
--
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
"I went to Iraq and all I got was this lousy gas price"
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
Nancy Lebovitz
Callisto <rx...@psu.edu> wrote:
>stePH <acet...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<2k0rmpF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> Benny Fitzoffheinseit wrote:
>>
>> > i wonder if robots can be made to conceive and have babies.
>>
>> ObAnime: _Armitage III_
>>
>> stePH
>
>But why would they want to have babies? Isn't the idea of a Stepford
>Wife one who will fulfill your fantasies and never act in ways that
>contradit it? Why have a baby who will grow up to someone who will
>not follow the script and contradict you, and the rest? Take also into
>account that your fantasy playmate does probably does not have the
>wherewithal to help you cope, since parenting skills were not included
>in the recipe for ideal playmate.
How about robot kids? They're affectionate when you want to give them
attention, and don't bother you when you want to think about something
else. They never do anything to embarrass you.
If you insist on a human child, then there's no reason why the Stepford
Wife couldn't include childcare abilities. Throw in a few robot servants,
and the Wife shouldn't be noticably distracted from taking care of you.
Michael Stemper
>the movie got it all wrong. in the future,
nobody will have shift keys.
Why are we getting all of these trolls cross-posted to TV groups? It's
not September. Is it because school just got out?
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.
EAC
> Isn't the idea of a Stepford Wife one who will fulfill
> your fantasies and never act in ways that contradit it?
> Why have a baby who will grow up to someone who will
> not follow the script and contradict you, and the rest?
Why not have a baby that will be just like the wife, made.
> Take also into account that your fantasy playmate does probably
> does not have the wherewithal to help you cope, since parenting
> skills were not included in the recipe for ideal playmate.
Of course unless one wanted to play a 'father, mother, and child (or
children)' game.
Please access "Doctor's family program Beta-Rho" for more information.
EAC
> Unfortunately true. My local church recently raised funds
> to go into Sudan and buy a number of slaves and set them free.
Then what? What happen to the slaves when they're free?
How do they eat? How do they get their clothes? How do they get their
shelter? How do they get their pocket money? And so on.
The story for the slaves did NOT end once they're free, it continues
on. Their life after they were freed might be even worse, or better,
depends on the situation.
The worst fate of a slave is to be left behind without any master.
The church should take care of them once they're free, since that the
church is responsible for their freedom.
> Slavery is alive and very unwell, even in this day and age.
Slavery will always exist. The problem isn't slavery itslef, but
instead how slavery was done. A good master will treat his slave
fairly.
Making slavery illegal on the other hand will make criminals out of
many people and might make treatment of slaves worse.
EAC
> Lets be real. Some men are willing to trade in
> high mileage wife for the newest sweet young thing.
Correct. But... I think that most men would prefer to have BOTH the
old faithful wife and the new young wife. The old wife while old does
give the feeling comfort and a sense of realiability, while the new
one gives a fresh and exciting feel. It's like getting and using a new
computer, but still keeping and using the old one.
Though it would be ironic if the new young wife is actually an old
flame that was known before the old wife.
> The NSYT is trading her youth and pliancy for
> money and we know what_he's_buying.
Well... It's probably the same with the originial wife.
> Murdering your wife is an entirely
> different scale of creepiness.
Like somebody once said, when men thinks it's safer to murder their
wives than divorced them, there are something wrong with divorce laws.
And divorce laws these days basically character assasinated a man.
> As far as picking your dream girl, I_did_and have lived happily ever after
> with a woman who isn't my creation, chattel or appendage. She gets out of
> sorts but so do I. She buys jewels, I buy books and guns. It all evens out.
Well... A woman is created with many good things, though obviously
with some defects.
> If all you want is a fuck-buddy, by all means go out and rent one.
Fuck-buddy isn't rentable, but instead is avaiable through friendship.
I think that what you meant is Rent'n'Fuck-body.
> It'll be lots cheaper for you than buying (marrying) one.
Cheaper in the very short term, but more expensive in the long term.
Ross TenEyck
>rx...@psu.edu (Callisto) wrote in message news:<89dcabe3.04062...@posting.google.com>...
>> Isn't the idea of a Stepford Wife one who will fulfill
>> your fantasies and never act in ways that contradit it?
>> Why have a baby who will grow up to someone who will
>> not follow the script and contradict you, and the rest?
>Why not have a baby that will be just like the wife, made.
ObSFMovie: _A.I._ Also pretty much the answer to "why not."
Of course, the tragedy in that movie was that wossname was self-
aware, and had needs and could be hurt; but the circumstances of
his making made it impossible for his needs to be met. The wives
in the original Stepford movie seemed only slightly more intelligent
than Eliza.
Andrew Maizels
> Someday, perhaps, I'll get around to writing that Ranma 1/2 fanfic
> I thought of, "The Stepford Akane."
Well, anyone could see how that would turn out. The replacement Akane
would be all lovey-dovey until you tried to actually *do* anything, and
then POW!
Andrew.
--
My other sig is Porsche.
Christopher Adams
>
> Though it would be ironic if the new young wife is actually an old
> flame that was known before the old wife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla_Parker_Bowles
Brad Sims
>
> Why are we getting all of these trolls cross-posted to TV groups? It's
> not September. Is it because school just got out?
This is ,if I caclulated it correctly, day 3738 of the
Sepember That Never Ended. The Never Ending September
started September 1993 when AOL unleashed its gibbering
hordes on an unsuspecting Usenet...
Here is the Jargon File entry on the subject:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/September-that-never-ended.html
--
[Microsoft Vaccine 2000 is configuring your immune system. This may take
a few minutes. If your body stops responding for a long time and there is
no brain activity please die. Setup will continue after you are reborn.]
Buzh in the Scary Devil Monastery
Callisto
Are you nostalgic for the ol' plantation, massa? It was so nice with
the darkies doin' all the work, and when they did not work hard enough
they got whipped...
Callisto
> > Lets be real. Some men are willing to trade in
> > high mileage wife for the newest sweet young thing.
>
> Correct. But... I think that most men would prefer to have BOTH the
> old faithful wife and the new young wife. The old wife while old does
> give the feeling comfort and a sense of realiability, while the new
> one gives a fresh and exciting feel. It's like getting and using a new
> computer, but still keeping and using the old one.
>
> Though it would be ironic if the new young wife is actually an old
> flame that was known before the old wife.
>
> > The NSYT is trading her youth and pliancy for
> > money and we know what_he's_buying.
>
> Well... It's probably the same with the originial wife.
>
> > Murdering your wife is an entirely
> > different scale of creepiness.
>
> Like somebody once said, when men thinks it's safer to murder their
> wives than divorced them, there are something wrong with divorce laws.
> And divorce laws these days basically character assasinated a man.
>
Well, and murdering your creditors is also a lot cheaper than paying them...
The Babaloughesian
"Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote in message
news:az941-AD9DBF....@individual.net...
> In article <Xns9512A85BCD81Fju...@209.25.157.130>,
> Justin <justin1138@REMOVEnet> wrote:
>
> > "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote:
> >
> > > You might check out http//www.realdoll.com
> > >
> > > Seems kinda' creepy to me, but... whatever floats your boat.
> >
> > Sure, a blow up sex doll is creepy. I never said I'd want a blow up sex
> > doll. We were talking about synthetic android, lifelike women, as in
> > the Stepford Wives. Of course it's all theory now, but might be reality
> > within 50 years or so. Wouldn't it be cool to pick your dreamgal?
> > choose her appearance, her personality, make her a concert pianist,
> > programmed to be a gourmet cook, no bad attitude, no PMS, no propensity
> > to spend $500 on a dress, etc. It's nice to dream.
>
> Stepford-ish as you might desire, but isn't there something about a
> relationship that's supposed to be about give-and-take? Seems like most
> people outgrow the fantasy of a walking, talking sex doll that doesn't
> ever have a contrary opinion when they're in their mid-teens.
Perhaps that's only something they do out of necessity.
rick++
in the 19th century, doctors had vibrators for frustrated females.
Everyone knows what the first profitable InterNet business was.
I expect sexbots like Gigilo Joe in A.I. to occur someday.
stePH
"When fire was invented, men didn't say 'Hey, let's cook!' They said
'Great! Now we can see naked bottoms in the dark!'"
-- Steve on (BBC) _Coupling_ episode "Inferno"
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
William December Starr
"Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> said:
> TMI.
ObSF: _In the Drift_, Michael Swanwick.
:-)
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Dennis Francis Heffernan
> It's illegal to rent one.
Hardly, you just have to be discreet about the compensation.
--
Dennis F. Heffernan CoH: Venture (Virtue) heff...@comcast.net
#include <disclaim.h> MS Messenger: Venture
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days
when Victoria reigned!" -- T.S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"