No, because women can get their sexual needs more or less without trouble. A male sex robot owned by a woman would make me feel the same way though, similar to the man’s-arm-shaped pillows. It is sad, because they can’t get a their emotional needs for intimacy fulfilled and are resorting to hollow physical proxies

No. But you are an extreme minority, and your existence won’t change overall cultural views of sex robots.

Please tell me where this has been tried. I know of no major government entity which has enacted Georgist tax policy.

If you hate capitalism, you are missing the big picture - the enemy of the average person isn’t the accumulation of money and respurces, but the accumulation of power - money and resources being but one aspect of this. Capitalism is good because it mostly occupies the psychopaths with becoming rich, rather than seeking seats of power in government. Capitalism is the best form of innovation and resource distribution we have yet devised, and works well for people with proper safeguards in place preventing accumulation of too much wealth and ensuring the welfare of the average citizen.

Sounds like a pretty big cope. Sex isn’t about cumming. It’s about emotional connection with another human being. Being unable to get fulfillment of this basic human need is sad and lonely. This is why fleshlights have a stigma that beating your bishop the old fashioned way doesn’t - every healthy teenaged boy spanks it on the reg. But actually purchasing a device speaks to a level of hopelessness at obtaining actual sex that is sad, which implies a failure to be attractive, which is itself unattractive.

Tribalism. They’ll find a way to think Trump is good, because that is a necessity for tribal membership for them.

Removed by mod

The issue is that you presume the options are either public housing or a tent. You are missing the other option, which is simply allowing developers to build more housing on their own and removing the ability to speculate on land value, forcing land owners to earn an income only by the benefit their land provides to others. Zoning reform, good urban infrastructure, and Georgist tax policy do this without necessitating terrible concrete commie blocks everywhere

This seems true only on short time scales, and in corporate work structures. On long time scales and with more collaborative, voluntary work structures, a group of people working together and supporting each other will almost certainly outperform a disorganized collection of non-communicative individuals. We can see this is true because, yaknow, society exists.

Thanks I hate it.

Look up “polarizing” as a dating strategy. You don’t have to attract everyone. Just the people who are into what you’re into.

Not really. I’d say that most fetishes heavily favor one gender or another.

Who said it isn’t working?

No, but a lot of women are really into giving pleasure to their partners, whatever that might entail (within boundaries). So if a guy is really into feet and shows it, there’s a decent chance his partner will get off on indulging his fetish. Plus, I assume foot fetishists give the best foot massages.