Bimboid utopia: what do men want?

Porn does not distort reality, it reveals it. In western countries it is no longer possible to claim that pornography reflects the attitudes of a small minority of dirty old men. Digitalisation and the internet made porn pervasive, at the same time destroying feminist hopes of getting it banned. Porn is not only here to stay, its pervasiveness says something about society, and above all about men, and their attitudes to women.

A simple thought experiment will clarify this. Suppose a fleet of alien spacecraft appears in the skies – just as in earth-invasion films, only this time the aliens are benevolent. They offer a spectacular gift: a free grand tour of the galaxy, for all women and children on the planet, and for all gay and bisexual men as well. The grand tour will last three years, and everyone accepts the offer. That means that all adult heterosexual men will be left behind for three years, without actual or potential sexual partners.

However, the aliens have thought about that, and they have a solution. With their advanced bio-robotic technology, they can supply artificial sex partners which are indistinguishable from human women. The aliens will provide each male with one or more of these sexoids, designed to individual specifications, and maintain and replace them as necessary. If requested they will provide a clone of an existing partner, but it could be something else entirely.

Now I know this has no logic: there is no reason why aliens would come here to do that. It is just a thought experiment, although it does resemble the base scenario of some alternate-universe erotic fiction. In any case, it allows us to think about what would happen, if male sexual preference was not restricted by any practical considerations.

So would men choose a partner based on respect for admirable personal qualities rather than appearance, to engage in a loving relationship founded on reciprocal trust and mutual consent? Would they behave as feminists would wish that men behave in such circumstances?

Aletta Ocean. Copyright Pressplay Entertainment Ltd., claimed fair use (illustrative citation).

Aletta Ocean. Copyright Pressplay Entertainment Ltd., claimed fair use (illustrative citation).

The fuck they would. They would, for instance, order an airhead silicon bimboid obsessed with serving them sexually, or perhaps a skinnier anal-addicted Ukrainian model. Some might order a compliant partner from another ethic group – but that’s only a minor deviation from mainstream tastes. Some of the specifications would certainly be much nastier: babies for repeated rape, for instance, and snuff robots which scream and bleed realistically when their arms are sawn off.

Even if we disregard those extremes, we would expect most heterosexual men to choose artificial sexual partners which resemble the hyper-sexualised, sex-addicted, compliant and accessible women shown in porn. They would prefer these women to be ‘actively submissive’, seeking coercion and responding to it sexually.

What’s the evidence for this claim? Porn is the evidence. Pervasive porn, accessed by almost all men, in societies where it is available. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the women depicted in heterosexual porn are in fact the preferred female sexual partners of heterosexual men. We must assume that the activities depicted, are in fact their preferred sexual activities. Porn is supplied solely on a free market-basis, and is highly responsive to demand. Porn shows us what men would prefer to have, instead of real women.

In other words, we must assume that if moral and practical restraints were absent, men would behave just as radical feminists think they all want to behave. They would treat women as objects to be judged on their sexualised appearance, to be used solely for sexual gratification, to be sexually available and sexually compliant, and passive when coerced.

Feminists call this ‘objectification’. The idea of alien-supplied sexoids is interesting because they are in fact objects. They are just things, designed to be used. Objectification seems a good term for what men want: if male sexual preferences are explicitised, then those preferences will correspond to an object to use sexually. That’s not because an age-old patriarchal conspiracy has trained men to act that way, it’s simply how male sexuality works. Men don’t get sexually aroused by mutual respect and moral autonomy, and on evolutionary grounds we should not expect them to.

What porn has done is to clarify things. Radical feminists have gone some way to evaluate the consequences, but most feminists still waste time on discussing if and how porn can be banned, or if men can be educated to adopt non-sexist attitudes to women. Neither will work.

What I propose is that the state steps in, and attempts to fulfil the role played by the aliens in the sexoid scenario. Although the technology is not there yet, if research is sufficiently funded, a prototype bimboid is probably feasible within a generation. Within three generations, it should be possible to make high-quality sexoids generally available, to replace women as sexual partners.

If feminists can overcome their distaste for ‘objectification’, they would see here the possibility of liberation from male sexual desire, which they find so oppressive. If sexually ultra-desirable surrogate women are freely available, then there is no need for men to chase the less attractive real women. That is comparable to a traditional argument for prostitution – that the availability of whores protected virtuous wives and mothers from carnal lust. Feminism rightly rejects this argument, since it would benefit some women at the expense of others. However, robots are not women, and their use as a mere object of male sexuality is ethically unproblematic.

True, that does not solve the issue of reproduction, which some radical feminists see as the real underlying motive of patriarchy. Nevertheless, a commitment by state and society to develop an alternative for women, is not simply a tax-funded gift for the over-sexed. It entails a recognition that genetically embedded male attitudes to women constitute a burden for women, and a strategy to remove that burden.

The solution advocated by feminists themselves – that men turn off or fundamentally modify their sexual drive – is not at present feasible. Nor is there any justification for it: women are not morally entitled to demand, that men cease to be men. However it is true, that if the future state can somehow breed, print, or manufacture bimboids for male pleasure, then it can in theory also breed, print, or manufacture feminist men, to provide companions for women. There is no moral objection to that: the feministoids would be just as much an object as the bimboids, and their treatment not subject to moral constraints either.

What won’t work is, for instance, women insisting that men should never look sexually at a woman, or men insisting that all women provide sexual gratification on demand. Neither is possible in the real world. Instead we should recognise that if men would prefer sex robots to real women, and if women would prefer genetically modified men, that both groups are better off without each other. As so often with fundamental value conflicts, segregation is the logical response.

In the alien sexoid scenario, what would happen when the women came back? Would men voluntarily abandon their ideal sexual partners for real women – who don’t look like pornstars and don’t want to be, for instance, anally penetrated all day? If porn represents underlying male preferences, then the answer is no: men would prefer to keep the sexoids. If the aliens then offer to bring women to a habitable and comfortable earth-like planet, leaving the men on earth with their new sexual partners, would that not be a logical choice for women?

To summarise the logic: porn shows that heterosexual men are not in fact attracted to women, but to sexual objects with female sexual characteristics. The general refusal of women to act as full-time sexual objects in a porn universe, indicates that women have also no preference for sexual relationships with men, as men actually exist. Men would prefer to have something else rather than women, and women would prefer to have something else rather than men. Attempts at mutually satisfactory relationships between men and women are therefore generally misdirected, and attempted sexual contact causes stress to both. Segregation would benefit both parties, and gender segregation is feasible to a very high degree, without apocalyptic economic consequences. The state should therefore adopt gender segregation as a strategy, in response to increasing dissatisfaction among women about sexist culture and attitudes.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s