Real Colored Jazz: Pretension, Robosexuals, and Homosexuals

One of my favorite movies was A River Runs Through It. It may still be. It’s been a long time since I’ve last seen it. It’s a story during the 1920s about two Montana brothers; one dangerously adventurous (Paul), and an older, pensive writer (Norman); who is the narrator.

In one scene, Norman comes back home from between semesters at a Chicago college. As he attempts to regale his old friends with big city life he boasts about the jazz he’s heard in clubs; “real colored jazz”, he calls it. He also derides a popular white jazz act of the day called the Clicquot Club Eskimos. His gambit of ur-hipster status-signaling fails among his townie friends when the bird he likes protests that her mother loves the Clicquot Club Eskimos. It won’t be so simple in the near future.

When the robots… arrive they will quickly become townie objects. When that happens, the Normans of the world (and most people are Norman at one time or another) will begin their search for authenticity. This earnestness won’t cause them to get rid of their robots and virtually real pornography. Nor will the pressure robosexuality will exert on human mating choices be lessened. People will still want increasingly unrealistic standards of more and better sex.

What it will do is make homosexuality seem authentic. “At least,” they’ll say, “a man having sex with another man is natural.”

At the same time, robosexuality will make sexual perversion un-real. “It’s not really gay,” they’ll say, “to pretend to have sex with a pretend man.”

Robots with Benefits

For women, this has already happened with the explosion of the sextoy market, and now Lesbian Until Graduation is an accepted practice. The thinking goes (not that there’s much consciousness involved) that, if its ok to pleasure yourself just for the sake of pleasuring yourself, then what is the problem with allowing another to pleasure you? Just as there is no romantic attachment or sexual orientation in regards to vibrators, then there needn’t be the implication of romantic attachment with a sexual partner.

And so–somewhat athwart my previous statement that the sexbot apocalypse will generate male homosexual activity–the robot-buying-base will be women. (I think male homosexual activity will increase [especially among affluent whites and asians), but it won’t overtake heterosexual fantasies.) I base this on the fact that while sales of male sextoys have increased a bit in recent years, they are far from overtaking the smorgasbord of options on the female market.

From a cultural perspective, I’ve never actually known of a man who owned a sex doll or other item. If they did they hid it. Meanwhile, vibrators have been sold for decades as “personal massagers” in beauty supply stores; right next to the old lady hair blueing.

If I’m right, none of it bodes well for anyone.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Real Colored Jazz: Pretension, Robosexuals, and Homosexuals

  1. @Chad

    My pleasure.

    @Zippy

    isn’t even on the radar

    Commander?

    What is it, son?

    This entire radar screen is green, sir.

    And?

    Well, green on the radar is bad; isn’t it, sir?

    No, son. That’s a female radar. It’s always green and clear.

  2. Slavesterbation? Powered by FreeBSDM? Will there be a danger in catching computer viruses?

    Will Obamacare cover it, and will Sandra Fluke need contraception?

    Robosex is merely the extension of masturbation while viewing pornography. In the Anime “Heavy Metal” (early 80s?) they have a robot sex scene, then there’s Woody Allen’s (pause for thought) Sleeper.

    Speaking of movies, I keep thinking of Batman where Alfred comments on the Joker, “Some people just want to see the world burn”. My thought is that people will deny they are playing with fire while pouring gasoline and diesel fuel all over and striking matches. They are less honest than the joker and more psychopathic-sociopathic. (Say, was Hannibal Lecter an MD or Osteopathic?).

    On the spiritual front, I’m not sure I ought not be worried about the magician side of things (see Lewis Abolition of Man, “Materialist Magician”). In earlier times we had the Succubus and Incubus. I’m not sure this will do anything other than making a physical housing for the demons easier to make happen.

    Larry Niven in several of his novels describes a “wirehead” – someone who has electrodes implanted into their pleasure center with a box that insures it can only work for a time (parallels in Shatner’s Tek TV series as well as HitchHikers Guide). I think we are closer to that as well – why bother with drugs and sex, just “push the button” and you will feel more pleasure than anything physical could give.

    And that is the, excuse the pun, root. Humans are like both angels and animals, and we need to insure we are occupying the right parts with our wills and intellects. Classic Virtue is to put the “angel” ahead of the animal. That we needed to control our passions. That there was greater joy and happiness in profound beauty – Art, Music, Nature – than the fleeting, often addictive, and often false or destructive pleasures of the flesh.

    The strategic victory is to shred these far higher and better things. Few bother listening to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. They listen to [insert banal modern artist] instead. Sometimes great Jazz or other contemporary rises to something magnificent. More often it is placebo for a tranquilizer – and effective. They don’t attempt to think and love knowledge and wisdom. They instead get talking points. In the Fountainhead, even the atheist Ayn Rand nails it:

    http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004FMp

    Just one paragraph but you ought to read the whole:

    Here’s another. Kill man’s sense of values. Kill his capacity to recognise greatness or to achieve it. Great men can’t be ruled. We don’t want any great men. Don’t deny conception of greatness. Destroy it from within. The great is the rare, the difficult, the exceptional. Set up standards of achievement open to all, to the least, to the most inept – and you stop the impetus to effort in men, great or small. You stop all incentive to improvement, to excellence, to perfection. Laugh at Roark [the hero of the novel] and hold Peter Keating [mediocre] as a great architect. You’ve destroyed architecture. Build Lois Cook and you’ve destroyed literature. Hail Ike and you’ve destroyed the theatre. Glorify Lancelot Clankey [think Geraldo or Rachel Maddox] and you’ve destroyed the press. Don’t set out to raze all shrines – you’ll frighten men, Enshrine mediocrity – and the shrines are razed.

    One of the things that Ayn Rand got but the modern Church has rejected, even in its wise and sane areas is Aesthetics. Beauty. Too often beauty is confused with something carnal – and Beauty is rare in human beings. But the robordellos will be beautiful. Great music is hard to play and challenges the listener. We’ve replaced the great hymns with Sesame Street and Barney songs. The orchestral Handel’s Messiah with a sing-along book. God is true and good beyond our imagining. But he is also beautiful. In every way. In the way of an abstract elegant mathematical proof. In the way a Bach fugue forms threads of music into a tapestry. In the way the great painters used paints to create something that transcends the best photograph.

    When we die, the first thing we will notice about Heaven is that it is beautiful beyond anything we have imagined, and Hell is ugly beyond description. Smells get at this in that flowers and other sweet smells invoke feelings, and sulfur and rot invoke others. Those are along the beauty-ugly axis.

    The reason lost to feminist feelings is obvious, but when banished what replaces it is often cold. Feelings are real. Beauty v.s. Ugly is a real conflict. And Beauty tends to involve the true feminine. Men can be handsome, but it isn’t thought of much. We speak of Beautiful women. Mother nature. Mythology too – sylphs and dryads. Tolkien had Awren and Galadriel.

    Sex was at the end of this appreciation, and not an end to itself. Starting with the deep love which makes the object beautiful regardless, transcending through actual worldly physical beauty, and finally ending in the pleasure in the love titled Eros. Even seduction (in its better forms) was about beauty. Women would beautify as they beatified. Men would take joy.

    Yet like motherhood, beauty has mainly been assigned to women. Truth seems more masculine. Goodness is shared. I don’t think the ugliness of feminists is an accident but a direct result of some natural law.

  3. Well, green on the radar is bad; isn’t it, sir?

    No, son. That’s a female radar. It’s always green and clear.

    lol at this. I agree. If this takes off, women will be the large part of the consumer base. Unscrupulous people will use the whole affair to usher in taboo perversions as normal (as they do with every other medium they can find).

  4. @tz

    One of the things that Ayn Rand got but the modern Church has rejected, even in its wise and sane areas is Aesthetics. Beauty. Too often beauty is confused with something carnal – and Beauty is rare in human beings.

    Aesthetics…big subject. Stay tuned.

    @JDG

    Glad you got a chuckle.

  5. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/08/09) | The Reactivity Place

  6. Pingback: The Hollow Victory of Conservatives | Things that We have Heard and Known

  7. You grossly over estimate the need and desire for male sexbots for men. That will be maybe 1-3% matching the gay population which will decrease in time due to a lack of offspring. The big market is for white female bots followed by latin/asian female bots and the black market for female child bots. It’s pedos that will be the secondary market and the more lucrative underground market. The push being for the normalization of this behaviour not an increase in homosexuality which I just don’t see happening in men.

  8. @dvdivx

    I think it’s likely there will be more homosexual experimentation among men. (Even a rise to 5% would be double.)

    It appears you and I have different assumptions about the nature of homosexuality; you seem to think it is a function of biology. I would assert that it’s dysfunction. There’s a difference between the idea that people are born with homosexual tendencies, and the idea that people are born with defects along a scale which makes them more susceptible to homosexual manipulation. Most people aren’t immune.

    Homosexuals are among the spiritual offspring of pedophiles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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