Feed on
Posts
Comments

Feminists have been taking it on the man-chin ever since Le Chateau busted on the scene, so it’s no wonder they react like scared little rabbits scattering before the predator sexbots. For all their bravado, feminists intuit the existential threat that sexbots pose to their (already low) sexual market value. And Swedish feminists are the most femcunty of femcunts who have a lot to lose should their small pool of self-abasing beta male lickspittles dry up as sexbots offer a superior alternative.

Swedish feminists demand State ban on ‘dangerous’ sex robots

Sex robots and sex dolls reinforce the view that women are objects and normalise men’s violence against women, three feminist Swedish organisations claim. They’re demanding legislation targeting technology that “reproduces ideas about exploiting women’s bodies”.

Translating from the feminist poopytalk: “Sexbots appeal to men in ways we can’t, and that hurts our feelings.”

First, sexbots don’t “reinforce” anything because male desire needs no reinforcing. It is a force of nature unto itself.

Second, I hate to inform dumb feminists of this stone cold truth, but women *are* objects. Men are visually stimulated by a host of sexy female physical characteristics, which can be objectively measured against an ideal. In fact, women’s personalities are also objectively measurable. It’s also a false premise to claim that objectification is the purview of one sex. Men are objectified, but under different criteria that aren’t as tidily conspicuous as female youthnbeauty.

Third, sexual relief doesn’t “normalize violence” against women, unless feminists want to argue that every time a man has an orgasm his mind drifts to thoughts of gendercide. If anything, studies have shown there is a decline in rape-y violence where men have alternate sexual outlets.

Finally, they misspelled “reproduces female biological forms which trigger male arousal”.

The debaters noted that today’s sex robots often have the “appearances and attributes typical of the objectifying, sexualised and degrading attitude to women found in today’s mainstream pornography”.

Note the typical femcunt bait and switch: a man’s desire, typified by his boner, is the same as a “degrading attitude to women”. More accurate: a man’s desire is a degrading attitude to fat, ugly feminist shrews who are neglect raped by never being the object of that desire.

“Why are men willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for a robot that obeys their smallest command?” the feminists asked rhetorically. “A female robot cannot say no to something that the man wants, if she is not programmed to do so”, the feminists complained.

That’s a feature, not a bug. This statement is very revealing. It’s as if feminists want a romantic landscape in which they can giddily and endlessly reject and deny men’s wants. This state of affairs is a power trip for the bitterbitch feminist.

The leaders of the women’s organisations claimed that fantasies stimulated by such technology may lead to real violence against girls and women.

Only in Latin America.

They also drew parallels with pornography, whose consumption, they claimed, leads to sexist attitudes and actual violence. The dehumanisation of women justifies slavery, and the exploitation of the female body through new technology is part of this, they claimed.

So many claims, so little evidence.

The ardent feminist considers a woman “humanized” when she’s loved for “her mind” and chained in slavery to a corporate cubicle farm and exploited by an academia-to-career pipeline that deprives her of the chance to have more than one non-autistic child who is itself farmed out to daycare run by third worlders who drop her kid on its head and laugh about it.

The three organisations demanded that an inquiry be made to produce proposals on “how technology and activities that normalise abuse can be restricted and prohibited”.

Funny, I was under the impression that Western societies have so abnormalized “abuse” to the point that a shy betaboy can’t look sidelongs at a girl in an elevator without getting fired and cast off from polite company.

Note that the only way these empty, vapid assertions by femcunts are anywhere close to reality is if one redefines “abuse” to mean anything a man does to a woman other than promptly and deeply bow before her arrival and transfer the contents of his bank account to her favored refugee resettlement NGO.

The feminists also want Swedish authorities to make it difficult for “brothels with sex robots and dolls” to open in Sweden.

FYI Swedish feminist “leaders” are actually pissed that Hungary has pro-natal policies which would increase the number of births of White Hungarians. To the Swedish cunt, this is unacceptable. All White women must be made available for race mixing. Link:

Sweden’s ambassador to Hungary has received protests from the Hungarian government following Social Security Minister Annika Strandhäll’s incendiary tweet against Budapest’s policy to completely exempt mothers of four from taxes.

Strandhäll wrote that Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s demand for “more genuine Hungarian children” was offensive, “reeked of the 1930s” and effectively offset the benefits of feminism.

“What is happening in Hungary is alarming. Now Orban wants more ‘genuine’ Hungarian children to be born. The policy reeks of the 30s. A right-wing populist you need smokescreens for what this type of policy does to the independence women have been struggling for”, Strandhäll tweeted.

Swedish feminists are offended by White Hungarian children. I wish I was making this up. To the Swedish (and American) feminist, “independence” for women means encouraging them to get knocked up by Q’antavious Sh’aazaam.

Based Hungary responded to the Swedish shrews,

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto called Strandhäll’s statement “unacceptable” and noted a big difference between Sweden and Hungary in terms of politics.

“Hungary spends money on families, while Sweden spends it on migrants”, Szijjarto said…

Where is the lie?

Viktor Orban’s call for “Hungarian children” didn’t resonate well with the Swedish press, either. Sydsvenskan‘s columnist Sofia Nerbrand wrote that Orban “should be ashamed” of steps to stimulate childbirth in Hungary.

“Viktor Orban’s stated goal is that the Hungarian people will increase with the help of white Hungarian offsprings, not migrants,” Nerbrand wrote, calling this approach ‘unsavoury’. “Rhetoric and politics that put one’s own people first and shut out the others should have no place in today’s Europe.”

Swedes are mentally ill. Swedish feminists belong in a funny farm. These awful cunts are on record demanding more migrant births at the expense of native White births. Yet, they now run Sweden:

In 2014, Sweden received its first “feminist” government, which puts a special emphasis on women’s rights.

Sweden will be the first Western nation to collapse in a conflagration of orc invasion and pussyhat misrule, unless Swedish men wake the fuck up and kick these termagants out of a power which does not suit the female temperament and which is consequently ABUSED by feminists who have no earthly idea how to sustain civilization.

The Chateau comes out against any attempts to ban sexbots, unless there is simultaneous banning of fat chicks and caustic feminists, otherwise you’re just gonna create a massive black market fueling illegal profits that would make El Chapo blush.

***

DEUSVULT asks,

I wonder what it is that made these sycophants want to see their people, their history, and their homeland be destroyed. There’s feelz over reals, but these are modern day Tarpeia’s.

How is what Swedish feminists bitch about indistinguishable from mental illness? It’s sheer lunacy.

I have a suggestion for Swedish feminists. If you fear the threat from sexbots taking your place in the game of romance, stop being feminists. Lose weight, stick with your kind, respect your role in the home, and drop the battlecunt attitude. You might find Swedish men sharing their way with you.

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: