"Aura is working on the next incarnation of Glass, but the team is also developing other wearable technology... 'Glass & beyond'... building cool wearables.'"
People rejected Google Glass... in what was an amazing showing of desire to cling to what remains of humanity.
Somehow writing that last sentence made me want to link to this post at Instapundit: "Another reason men might be enthusiastic about female-free sex is obvious..."
September 17, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
51 comments:
I still suspect Google Glass was a hoax. Year after year of beta-testing. Did you ever see one, know anyone who used one? Why did it never come to market?
Glass is old news. I'm looking forward to the various VR devices that will be launching next spring: Oculus Rift (Facebook), HTC Vive (Valve, HTC), and Playstation VR (Sony).
Maybe somebody smarter than me can explain what's so new about masturbation.
"Maybe somebody smarter than me can explain what's so new about masturbation."
I know! And can you imagine a man thinking he's really telling women off — really showing them up — by saying he's just going to masturbate from now on?
Lotta money. Not lotta smarts.
Google Glass for just walkin' around seems pretty silly. The idea of using augmented reality in a work/technical setting, though, is pretty neat and I'll be we get there in the next few years.
"The idea of using augmented reality in a work/technical setting, though, is pretty neat and I'll be we get there in the next few years."
Exactly. Google completely botched the Glass "launch" by positioning it as a consumer-first product. A lot of new technology goes through the business/tech sectors first before becoming something consumers latch onto.
Surgeons are just one profession that would benefit from Glass technology.
Milo Yiannopoulos has already found his replacement for "nutty broads." Only a gay guy could get away with having written this article.
I am surprised Professor Althouse didn't riff on the fact that the sex doll in the linked article is named Harmony.
I know! And can you imagine a man thinking he's really telling women off — really showing them up — by saying he's just going to masturbate from now on?
Only women are supposed to feel empowered by their non-human sex organ toys.
Female free sex has absolutely no appeal to me. None. For one thing, how could a sex robot create that bird like responsiveness of a woman's body when your hand is around a her waist above the hip? The smell of the neck under the hair, so many things. I think a decent sex robot will be a harder lift than artificial intelligence, at least to service men. And don't talk to me about fleshlights, a milking machine for God's sake. Woman seem to get a lot of satisfaction out of their machines, I can't speak to that.
I don't think women are using those machines as a replacement for a relationship a real person, which is what Instapundit seemed to be approving of. It's not — not usually, I don't think — enthusiasm for male-free sex. It's more just a way to have an orgasm.
Beverly Hofstadter: I've been responsible for my own orgasms since 1982.
Penny: Yikes.
Beverly Hofstadter: *laughs*
Penny: What's so funny?
Beverly Hofstadter: That's exactly what I say during orgasms: "yikes".
-- The Big Bang Theory ("The Maternal Congruence")
Ann Althouse said...It's more just a way to have an orgasm.
Sure, but the way our society treats the idea of female vs male masturbation is interesting--it's the difference between something empowering & beautiful vs. something disgusting and joke-worthy.
The underlying (sexist) assumption is that men need little more than sex out of a relationship, or maybe just that if men can replace the "sex" component they don't need a relationship with a woman to get by, whereas women do need a relationship (with our without the sex component).
I thought the excerpt's assertion that women by many measures are more unhappy now than in earlier (modern but pre-feminist victories) times is worth looking into.
I don't think women are using those machines as a replacement for a relationship a real person, which is what Instapundit seemed to be approving of.
Really, Ann?
"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."
The Japanese, ahead of us in so many ways (good and bad!), have beat us to this one. A lot of their young men just aren't interested in sex, at least sex with other human beings. I'm not even talking sexbots, necessarily, but human-sized non-sexbot dolls to sleep with, &c. (I mean "sleep with" in the literal sense, not the "jack off on" one.)
As for vibrators, Instapundit "seemed to be approving of" men doing what women have done for decades. And, really, why not? Goose, meet gander. It's all part of that voluntary withdrawal of the male self from contact with the female that Glenn is on about endlessly. I see men fleeing women as well, and I can't honestly blame them.
Yes, what Hoodlum Doodlum said.
I was responding to this: "I know! And can you imagine a man thinking he's really telling women off — really showing them up — by saying he's just going to masturbate from now on? "
And it seems to me that women would think they are really telling men off- really showing them up- by saying they are just going to use a vibrator from now on. And if that isn't it, and presumably women still want male sex partners, then yeah, women wouldn't want to be told men are just going to masturbate from now on. Right?
As I said, we are supposed to see women's sex toys as empowering.
@Althouse, if you want to understand the drive for sex robots, take a hard look at the Millennial women populating your campus. Ask yourself what sane young man would want one for a life partner. I don't feel sorry for the young woman who offers nothing to a prospective mate than a wet vagina plus a lot of drama and self-importance. Maybe if she had to think about what she has to offer and what a real partnership might require, she might even get over herself.
"As for vibrators, Instapundit "seemed to be approving of" men doing what women have done for decades. And, really, why not? Goose, meet gander. It's all part of that voluntary withdrawal of the male self from contact with the female that Glenn is on about endlessly. I see men fleeing women as well, and I can't honestly blame them."
No. He's ignoring that women's vibrators correspond to men just masturbating -- getting to an orgasm, which is something that you might do alone or with somebody else.
He's looking at the replacement of the whole person with a life-sized animated doll who would stand in for a relationship with a human being. That would correspond to a woman having the same thing -- a life-sized animated doll that provides not only a way to get to an orgasm, but the illusion of human companionship.
I really don't know why Glenn is so enthusiastic about men shunning women. Is he pandering to readers who are socially unsuccessful/unacceptable? He himself is married, and he has a daughter. I think he loves the companionship of women. It's sort of like those women who talk feminism, with lots of high-spirited critique of male dominance and the patriarchy and so forth, but have husbands or boyfriends and get on just fine with them. But I worry about the people who hear and respond to the anti-male or anti-female rhetoric and settle into a lonely life deprived of intimate companionship, encouraged by some idea of separationism that was never practiced by those who propounded the idea.
In real life, most of us benefit from relationships with other human beings, and you can say oh, I'm better off without a partner and read lots of stuff that encourages your isolation, but you may be making a terrible mistake.
"I see men fleeing women as well, and I can't honestly blame them."
Why is the topic blame?
I thought we were talking about happiness.
Men fleeing women doesn't sound like evidence of happiness in men. It sounds like fear and inadequacy at worst and, at best, asceticism or keeping it simple. Your use of the word "fleeing" really suggests fear.
"The underlying (sexist) assumption is that men need little more than sex out of a relationship, or maybe just that if men can replace the "sex" component they don't need a relationship with a woman to get by, whereas women do need a relationship (with our without the sex component)."
We don't really crave sex. We crave affection. Physical affection.
Most of us, anyway.
Is he enthusiastic about it, or does he see it happening?
Here's a blurb from his book page on Amazon, the one he links:
American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates. The trend is so pronounced that a number of books have been written about this “man-child” phenomenon, concluding that men have taken a vacation from responsibility simply because they can. But why should men participate in a system that seems to be
I think you are incorrect to describe him as a proponent.
Now....let's remember you were the one who talked about men not being a splooge stooge. Which would really be about men shunning sex with women, because women cannot be trusted.
"@Althouse, if you want to understand the drive for sex robots, take a hard look at the Millennial women populating your campus. Ask yourself what sane young man would want one for a life partner."
Have you visited my campus? It's a vast array of human individuals. I can't imagine a young heterosexual man walking through this campus and not seeing dozens of women he'd love to get to know.
"I don't feel sorry for the young woman who offers nothing to a prospective mate than a wet vagina plus a lot of drama and self-importance."
You sound like you're just manufacturing misogynistic shit. What is your problem?
"Now....let's remember you were the one who talked about men not being a splooge stooge."
Yes. This was advice to men not to go around spewing their genetic material haphazardly. You need to treat that stuff with the respect it deserves. Find a good partner to love and trust. There is too much cheap, bad sex going on and persons of both sexes complaining about it.
Ann Althouse said...I really don't know why Glenn is so enthusiastic about men shunning women. Is he pandering to readers who are socially unsuccessful/unacceptable? He himself is married, and he has a daughter. I think he loves the companionship of women.
That seems like a misread of Insty's enthusiasm for those types of stores, Prof. Most prominently his wife wrote a book about the way men are "dropping out" of society and their traditional roles and explores some possible reasons why that might be the case. I don't think the Reynolds are enthusiastic so much as they are keen to point out that it's a real trend with real causes--both highlight the ways the culture and law/politics "target" men and argue that men are responding to incentives. Enthusiasm isn't really the right word but at worst I think you could say Insty argues something like "well, if they're going to treat you like this you ought to respond appropriately," and in some cases the "appropriate" way to respond is to refuse to conform (the only winning move is not to play the game). I'm sure both Reynolds-es would be happy with a different prevailing culture w/r/t its treatment of men (esp. young men), so I don't think it's fair to say they're enthusiastic supporters of the current situation so much as they're proponents of assessing the truth realistically and acting in a pragmatic way.
Ann Althouse said...Have you visited my campus? It's a vast array of human individuals. I can't imagine a young heterosexual man walking through this campus and not seeing dozens of women he'd love to get to know.
I don't think it's a question of him WANTING to get to know them, WANTING a relationship, or even WANTING to get married, etc. I think it's a matter of 1. those being more difficult and even dangerous things to pursue now and 2. the "payoff" for doing those things (in risk-adjusted terms) being lower now than in the past. I have read Milos' full article but I would be surprised if even he argues that guys PREFER a sex-bot to a healthy "real" relationship.
You sound like you're just manufacturing misogynistic shit. What is your problem?
LOL, well said.
I sort of understand what Insty is doing, but I agree that his stuff is best read as a warning to feminists than as a guide to how a male should live his life.
My advice to young people is to get married, have children, if you get divorced in 15 years, it is not the end of the world, and you will always have the children. And let go of the material shit. Seriously. So what if your wife and kids get the house? So what if your husband gets a new younger wife?
And maybe you won't get divorced and you will build a solid life together with emotional fulfillment and material well being? It could happen!
Stop being so bitter!
Let me give you an example of what I mean re: Prof. Reyonlds taking a pragmatic vs. enthusiastic approach to our current fallen world. He has a refrain about chivalry, and how chivalry was a system based on mutual obligations/responsibilities (for both men and women) and how the modern culture and/or feminism decided to do away with some of the obligations and therefore shouldn't complain if and when men decide they're not bound by other obligations under the chivalric code.
I don't think it's accurate to say Prof. Reynolds is enthusiastic about a societal abandonment of the idea of chivalry, and I'd bet follows something like that code himself (and raises his daughter to follow it, etc). He is happy to point out, though, that the predominant culture no longer respects that code, and that since that's true it can't selectively hold individuals accountable for failing to meet some obligations under it.
I read Insty as being politically libertarian with a tolerant but traditional/conservative social streak in his own life. I could of course be wrong.
@Althouse when the illusion of human companionship is superior to the actual companionship of a female Millennial then there's a serious problem. It's a mark of your biases that you instantly assume it's a problem with men.
@Big Mike, is Althouse micoraggressing you?
I have two millennial daughters, they have many female friends. I just don't see what you are talking about. Turn off your Twitter feed and look around you!
If I read Amanda Marcotte every day, I would be constantly in a bad mood.
@Althouse, I was last on your campus over a decade ago and in no rush to come back. I know what kind of female STEM graduates my firm was hiring before I retired and if even the STEM grads are like that then the rest must be at least as despicable, probably worse. Don't talk to Glenn; go talk to Helen.
Yes. This was advice to men not to go around spewing their genetic material haphazardly. You need to treat that stuff with the respect it deserves. Find a good partner to love and trust. There is too much cheap, bad sex going on and persons of both sexes complaining about it.
Yes.
And I'm pretty sure you had this reaction because you were seeing much of the same things Reynolds is seeing. You gave a proscriptive, and he is describing what he sees resulting from it, from a male point of view.
"I sort of understand what Insty is doing, but I agree that his stuff is best read as a warning to feminists than as a guide to how a male should live his life."
Yeah, but who is reading this? Not the women. Men who are drifting into isolation from women and lamely justifying it and steeling themselves for loneliness, I suspect.
"You gave a proscriptive, and he is describing what he sees resulting from it, from a male point of view."
Plenty of males agree with me, including Meade.
Sex-bots. Sigh.
If the man does not want children, the primary purposes of the woman are sex and companionship. Companionship can be acquired through friends. The concept of two men having a very deep and close relationship without wanting to have sex with each other is not alien to the human experience, though these days it would be hard to tell such things ever existed. Certain lobbies keep insisting those two must be having sex! And if you want to be anti-social get a dog. And if you are really lazy, get a virtual dog.
That just leaves sex, which can be satisfied through the sex bot. For the low desirability male, the sex bot has the potential to be more attractive, more responsive, less expensive, less annoying, and far more disposable than the average woman he could acquire. Plus no VD. Yeah, sure, he would rather have a long, fulfilling relationship with a woman, but the odds he ends up with a shrew that makes him miserable, takes most of his assets, and lets his see his kids every other weekend makes the risk questionable.
As for me, I will decline the sex bot. As a computer geek, computers are not to be trusted. With my luck the thing would blue screen and rip off my manhood.
It's hard to be a man. But right now, I think that in the dating game, among the young, the men have the cards. I notice that the vast majority of millennial women that I see getting married are on the high end of the attractiveness scale, guys want to tie them down.
The men I see marrying them seem to fall into two groups, those raised in a religious household, not just church going, but religious, and those who listen to country music, which values marriage in so many of its songs. I only know this because some of the people I take fishing like to play country music, I don't care for it myself, except in an anthropological way. I have to believe that the constant messages from music are more important than the twitterverse or the blogosphere.
Songs like:
I'm not talkin' 'bout movin' in
and I don't want to change your life,
but there's a warm wind blowin' the stars around
and I'd really like to see you tonight
Is nothing but a booty call.
In the seventies Make It With You was not about what it sounds like, it was about making a life together.
Here is a song picked at pretty much random off today's country charts. You will notice that it is about a long term relationship, even if it doesn't explicitly say so, he obviously met her a long time ago when they were young, and is sharing his life with her.
"Nothin' Like You"
Mmm
I remember when I first met you
Sipping coffee in a corner booth
You were twirling your hair
And I just had to stare
For a minute or two
I was laughing at your stack of books
Then you shot me that smile
Hey beautiful girl, in your own little world
Let me in it
You got all of my attention
And you ain't even trying
Yeah, you're my kind of different
And I never seen nothin'
Nothin' like you
Shades on spinning in a summer rain
Dancing when there ain't no music
Just the right kind of crazy, baby
Something about you
Rockin' that rock 'n roll t-shirt
Whole party dressed up
But you just doin' your thing
Ain't nobody ever seen nothin' like you
When you're wearing them worn out jeans
Purple untied shoestrings
You're a light in the dark
And you're stealing my heart like a gypsy
I love the way that you kiss me
In front of everybody
So baby come and kiss me
They ain't ever seen nothin'
Nothin' like you
Shades on spinning in a summer rain
Refrain...
Stoopid hicks don't know how to live life!
AA, kindly cut to the chase. Are you not getting it or are you refusing to get it?
"Plenty of males agree with me, including Meade."
Sorry, Professor. I get your point but that is the feminist equivalent of "I have black friends."
Black friends with non-robotic black penises. Throbbing. Pulsating. Pulsating and throbbing.
I am Laslo.
Ann Althouse said...Men who are drifting into isolation from women and lamely justifying it and steeling themselves for loneliness, I suspect.
But based on survey data it's women who are less happy these days. The men may be lonely but it seems like women are more lonely...so I'm not sure what the problem is. You think people should be together, and everyone would be happier if they were. Relationships are tough and the new cultural trends make it tougher for men (at least thats what Mr. & Mrs. Reynolds argue, I think), so some men choose to be alone instead. You think their choice is bad and their justification for that choice is lame. But what if they're ok with it?
I don't think Prof. Reynolds' enthusiasm is for the outcome, but more in pointing out that the outcome is the logical/predictable result of cultural trends he opposed. It's less "this is what should happen" and more "see, I told you this is what would happen if you didn't listen to me."
Ann Althouse: "In real life, most of us benefit from relationships with other human beings, and you can say oh, I'm better off without a partner and read lots of stuff that encourages your isolation, but you may be making a terrible mistake."
I remember when you made that mistake.
Here's an example: Rep. Polis sort of apologizes
An elected Dem Rep says "I mean, if there’s 10 people that have been accused and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, seems better to get rid of all 10 people,” Polis said. “We’re not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we’re talking about their transfer to another university.” Lots of people applaud! Imagine someone (other than Trump) saying something like that about, say, illegal immigrants. Sure, lots of them are law-abiding hard workers, but since a small percentage of them are violent criminals we ought to kick 'em all out--deport 'em, right, we're not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, just transferring them to another country. The Media would lose their damn minds, the pol. would be instantly branded a racist, etc etc. So in a sense our culture thinks less of male college student citizens than they do of illegal immigrants. That fact--that judgement, that valuation--has consequences, and none of them make it more likely that young men and women will have an easy time forming stable monogamous long term relationships.
Breaking news from a couple-a days ago: Clinton: Women have a right to be believed
According to the woman with a better-than-even chance at being the next President people who claim to be victims of sexual assault have a right to be beleived:
"Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault," Clinton said. "Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you. / I think that when someone makes the claim, they come forward, they should be believed and that is what starts the process and then there is a determination as to what if anything should be done about the claim that was made"
So not a finding of fact, understand, but a process to determine what should be done about the claim--the claim that everyone has to believe. Now since an overwhelming majority of young people accused of sexual assault are men, it'd seem like this policy would have a bit of a disparate impact, right?
Well fine, you say, this should make causal sex or hookups more dangerous and thus less desirable, so good. Just stay away from the crazy ones! You don't know which ones those might be, of course, and if you do happen to run across one/have one bad experience it could ruin your life and you'll have not possibility to defend yourself (you have no right to be believed and the idea of presumed innocence'll seem quaint). It sure seems like this policy, and more importantly this ATTITUDE, would make it more difficult for people to form sexual relationships at all--why risk it if you're a guy? It seems like an Atlas Shrugged type of situation; if you keep piling things up on men and making things tougher and more dangerous for them, at a certain point being more solitary/declining to take the kind of chances that young people have historically taken.
Is that a lame rationalization? Maybe, but it's not imagined, and each little pebble adds some weight, until it's easier to just put the burden down.
Amusingly, Rep. Polis is gay. Hmm, I wonder if his life experiences make him unfit to discuss this issue, or if he is just an idiot. He also has a son. It's unclear if he thinks his son won't get in trouble, if his son won't be smart enough to get into college, or if he thinks son is going to take after dads. The latter won't really protect him either as the college kangaroo courts have already broken that ground as well.
You get more of what you reward and you get less of what you punish. Keep treating men like they are the equivalent of criminals for existing, and more and more of them will detach. After a generation or two, such a society is almost certainly doomed if it does not change its ways.
Once a Glasshole, always a Glasshole.
Plenty of males agree with me, including Meade.
Well, ok.
So you are saying, "men, don't have sex with women you aren't in a committed relationship with because they might fish your condom out of the trash and impregnate themselves and you will be on the hook for child support, and that is fair"
and Reynolds is saying,
"Men seem to be pulling way from getting into relationships with women"
And I don't know how you don't see how these things fit together
And once again, Reynolds isn't celebrating what's happening. He is describing it.
Another way to opt out of the human race.....
MayBee,
So you are saying, "men, don't have sex with women you aren't in a committed relationship with because they might fish your condom out of the trash and impregnate themselves and you will be on the hook for child support, and that is fair"
You left out "your condom, which you used only for oral sex." In other words, the woman in the story I think you're telling could have gotten preggers only by her own agency. The guy ended up on the hook for child support anyway.
Ann, I don't see the difference you do in vibrators vs. sexbots. You're saying a woman isn't just a vagina? Well, I'm saying a man isn't just a penis, and that we have oodles of mechanized penises across this country is evidence that a lot of women don't agree with me.
You left out "your condom, which you used only for oral sex." In other words, the woman in the story I think you're telling could have gotten preggers only by her own agency. The guy ended up on the hook for child support anyway.
I guess we can thank Bill Clinton for this idea that oral sex is not sex. It is. If one is sharing his genetic material with women he doesn't know and trust, he is taking the chance that a third, innocent and totally dependent party will be brought into it. (Even if he does know and trust her, but that aspect we all accept) I just can't see that as worth it.
You want two things: Unfettered access to sex and zero responsibility for it. You will have to excuse the rest of us if we decline to accept your premises and decide that you are responsible for the child.
I am so fucking old fashioned. The older I get, the more old fashioned I get. I guess from having enough perspective in time to see things play out.
Besides, an old-fashioned guy gets many a pair of panties wet.... ;)
Post a Comment