there's something very fishy about male-female relations these days, and I'm not
talking about the movie The Shape of Water, where a human female somehow
successfully mates with a fish. (What will the children look like!)
As my grandparents used to say, the kind of sex. They simply meant there was a lot of it. They probably never dreamed there'd be a movie about a cleaning lady having sex with an amphibian (not actually a fish, but close enough). This movie is ridiculous in many ways, but particularly in terms of biology. The girl sprouts gills and swims off with the fish, living happily ever after, never having to mop up a bathroom floor or clean out a soap dish again.
Well, that's one fish that got lucky, but he'll soon realize he'd have been better off mating with a bicycle when the paternity suit arrives and she gets half his ocean, half his fish salary for life, and gets to keep the spawn. Because, as we all know, women need the government to force us patriarchs to transfer our collective income to them, because they have that invisible glass ceiling hanging over their heads.
The reverse fairy tale—girl kisses frog, frog doesn't change into prince, girl changes into frog—is symbolic of where feminism is leading us. They're giving up something precious and condemning the frogs to remain frogs. Ichthyologists would point out that, by definition, two animals of different species cannot produce viable offspring. So the marriage is doomed.
But, as entertaining as all this girl on fish action may be, where is it leading us? There are some who still believe in biology-based tradition, the ancient biological drive to propagate the species by creating a bunch of new little cigar-smoking bastards. But their numbers are decreasing, thanks to the little Elizas wanting to become just like the frogs. The humans who occupy the planet in the next century may have to rely on technology if they want to survive.
Our civilization is becoming antinatalist and, like it or not, it's destined to change the biology of how we reproduce. Take “reproductive justice.” Is it, perhaps, a recognition that biology discriminates against men by preventing us from having children? Sadly not. It's a new term for right to choose, which is to say the right of women to have abortions at will.
Antinatalism, if carried to its logical conclusion, would give us no choice but to clone humans, carry them to term in incubators, and educate them in statist institutions. It's an unhappy choice: we would become dependent on technology or die out.
This raises an interesting question. How would humans bred in captivity differ from us? In a century or two, when intelligent robots have taken over, perhaps humans will be like koala bears, with couples being eagerly watched by robots hoping that they'll mate.
We always talk about rules and laws, but the laws of biology have absolute priority over our own, which is why 8% of men living in a large region of Asia are directly descended from Genghis Khan. Rape and sexual selection are part of our genetic heritage. Both sexes are guilty: men do one and women do the other, which is why we're all descended from mass murderers and not Gandhi. All our behavioral traits—women's conformity and group orientation, and men's aggressiveness—are the products of evolving in a social environment surrounded by potentially violent hostile tribes. This has not changed. Change these traits, and you condemn our species to extinction. Suppress them, and large groups of people will discover that civilization does not meet their needs, and they will work to end it.
Sexbots to the rescue
Just as self-driving cars are our future for taxis and transportation, and burgermats are the future for food, sex worker will become the principal occupation of women. Everyone else will be replaced by robots. Sex is a reflection of the need to reproduce, and so it is the one thing sexbots will never be able to fake convincingly. And so it is the future feminism may be unwittingly creating: turning women into prostitutes, and driving our species toward an increasingly artificial future.
So far those sexbots mostly resemble department store mannequins staring vacantly out into the horizon, and they're every bit as sexy. Sex with one, for a guy, would be boring. They could be programmed to need expensive bits of jewelry or to go crazy with a razor at random times, but they could never match a real human. And who can doubt that these bots will have video cameras that transmit everything that transpires to the cloud for future use against the man?
But the expression on a woman's face when she sees her replacement would make buying one well worth the cost. Katie Couric's expression as she observes the attributes of these mannequins in a sex robot factory is priceless.
The arrival of sexbots could be just what society needs to show us how much we have to lose. If we let politics and ideology govern our sexual roles—if we try to make men more like women and vice versa—humans will be forced to turn into machines to survive. Like the girl in the movie who transforms herself into something she can never be, sooner or later we'll all be sleeping with the fishes.mar 17 2018, 7:33 am. last edited may 23 2018, 5:54 am
