Can SexBots Save the World?

by Hunter Williams

The male-female relationship doesn't have to be antagonistic or unbalanced. There are more women on the planet than men; sexually transmittable diseases and unwanted pregnancies are better under control; and many women admit that they enjoy sex as much as men.

Some put the ratio of women to men on dating sites as high as 1:90. I would say it is -- or could be -- closer to 1:10 and I base this on what one can easily observe in bars and nightclubs. I have never seen 90 men for every 1 woman in a bar or a night club. One usually sees between 3 and 10 men for every woman, but this is dependent on various factors such as:

1) Climate and Weather. More women go out on warm, sunny days than cold, rainy days. Warm, sunny environments, such as LA and Florida, have the same effect.

2) Time of Year. Spring brings out more women than the other months.

3) Day of week. Most women, due to job pressures, tend to go out on weekends, however in many areas Weds and Thursdays are the preferred nights. Fewer predatory men out.

4) Location. Places populated with lots of religionists tend to have much less overt socializing. The church-going get their sex much more covertly or simply suffer in sexless, death-til-we-part marriages.

5) Culture. Some cultures are more mature about human sexuality than others. Women in such cultures thus have fewer issues about going out frequently or alone.

6) Population density. Cities have more women in bars than rural areas simply because there are many more women per block than in rural areas. I posit the very reason post-industrial era cities remain popular, or even continue to exist at all, is because they offer great sexual variety, and just as important, great anonymity.

Given the above, the question that comes to mind is: why would more women be willing to risk BARS than Internet dating SITES? If women are motivated more by male performance than looks, one would think women could better evaluate men over the Internet than in bars and nightclubs, etc.

Over the Net a woman is in the position to scan through vast numbers of male "applications," if not entire databases of male specifications. In an hour, a woman can survey scores or hundreds of males by looking over his online profile and written communications. She can see if he is literate by his emails and correspondence (thus he probably also has teeth). She can see if he has originality and humor by what he writes (thus he is probably fun-loving, if not intelligent). All that remains for her to do after the process of elimination of maybe thousands down to 10 is set up physical-world dates to verify that which was stated on-line (photographic representations included). Internet dating should thus be BONANZA for the (savvy) woman. Her alternative is risking physical presence in bars where society dictates she needs to use the drug alcohol in order to "fit in." In such a drug-modified environment, the woman can, at most, enter meaningful communication with but a handful of males in any 9PM to 1AM night out. Further, she usually must attend such "social session" with one or two friends so she can use these to help deflect the avalanche of males that will surely descend upon her after first drinks are swallowed. In such a setting, only superficial and perverted communication is possible. Understandably the females go home considering all the males encountered "assholes and the males go home considering all the females "bitches." Nevertheless, this is what modern "civilization" calls "socializing" or "society". It's a wonder the divorce rate is ONLY 50%.

It is said that evolutionary speaking "men are performers, women are judges". Put another way, men propose and women dispose. It is also said: "Men desire women, women desire what men can provide for them" and one of the things they most -- if not absolutely THE most -- is SECURITY.

This is why James Jaeger's theory that "government is an emergent property of the female species" makes sense. The trillions of females that have existed and died since the dawn of human kind have etched out a pattern we now recognize as "government" -- the institutionalization of SECURITY.

I realize that males and females are not technically categorized in the scientific world as separate "species," but I would argue the current categorization criteria is is lacking.

It is said: "Men want sex, women always trade sex for something else (just like bonobo females trade sex for bananas)." This is true, but more women these days are CLAIMING that they enjoy and want sex for sex sake. I think this is only true to the degree a woman is young. A young woman has her entire life to nail down the "perfect mate" (for the wherewithal of survival) whereas an older woman only has so many years of "good looks" remaining and then she is usually cast into the dust bin by the males. So males ARE just as ruthless and uncaring as the females.

It is said: "Young, attractive women are the precious and scarce resource in society."

But this may not be true. Since it's a fact that, in most given populations, the females out number the males by 1 or 2 percent, I don't see how women, or even attractive women, can be "scarce." If one agrees there are X number of attractive women out there, then there must be X (less 1 or 2 percent) number of attractive men out there as well. Nature would not make more "attractive women" than "attractive men" because the very definition of the word "attractive" denotes the statistical mean. And the mean is created by the selection of males and females by their interactions. Thus, if they interacted they MUST have been mutually attracted to each other or there would have been no copulation in the first place, hence no statistical mean.

So the question of why attractive women are "scarce" must be answered sociologically, not biologically. In other words: young attractive women exist, they simply don't go out into the environment as much as the young attractive men. Put another way, even young attractive men don't bring out young attractive women otherwise the girl-boy ratio would be closer to 1:1.

It is said: "Some men can get young attractive women, however, most can't get anything."

I don't know whether this is true, at least for the U.S. I will have to look over my set of friends and count their peer-bond choices. I will report back later. I will count how many of my male friends vs. female friends are a) without a mate and b) without a child.

If it is true that it's no different than in other mammals, that all females get to reproduce, but much smaller number of males are able to spread their genes, this may be only be location-dependent.

It is probably true that "a woman, if she is attractive, doesn't have to do anything else than simply exist and she will get overwhelmed with male offers." I would also say this is even true for women when they are not particularly attractive or even "unattractive."

Most men have experienced "last call" in bars and night clubs: the remaining minutes before the "law" forces millions of drunks simultaneously out onto the nation's roads where they can savage each other in high-speed, auto accidents and be picked off by the DUI vultures. My point is this: at "last call" even the most beauty-challenged women start looking quite attractive, especially with a little help from the beer. I don't think, however, this works in reverse, i.e., the women going after the beauty-challenged men at "last call." Why would this be, if it is true, as women like to claim that they like sex just as much as men. The fact is: women do NOT like sex as much as men because if they did, they would be much more aggressive and evidence of this would be replete at "last call."

It is said: "On the other hand, men have to work hard, invest all their energy, and tolerate countless failures, just to get a chance for a date -- and the torture doesn't end there."

This is absolutely true. One day, when I was only 25 years old and I had just had sex with an incredibly beautiful woman I recently met, I paused and thought for a moment after she went home. My exact thought was: "Boy, look at all the sheer energy you had to put out to get her." By this I meant, not only all the pre-copulative prep work, grooming, wineing and dineing etc, but the sheer energy it took to come up with a constant stream of jokes, entertainment, "fun" and action. THEN, after all this, and she becomes your "girlfriend" you find out she's an interminable bitch that you could never live with. This process usually takes 3 to 6 months for most men and never seems to end. Then it's back into the jungle. But, after having this happen to me about 10 or 15 times over the course of 10 - 25 years, I finally happened onto the solution to the problem.

Some wonder: "Men can't be really loved for what they are, so they put on a mask and start playing a role - a role of a confident, phlegmatic, happy, non-needy alpha-male, and their success depends on how well they play and how well they entertain. Eventually, some get too cynical and bitter towards women, and don't want to pretend any more, so they give up on women."

But men don't have to give up. As mentioned above, there is a solution to the problem:

If males go searching for women for SEX, they are doomed -- BUT if they go searching for a woman as a MATE, they will ALWAYS be successful. I have read almost all of the current "how to get a date" and "how to get laid" books available at Amazon (Magic's theories and all the rest). IN my judgement, all of these books are written by young, dumb males that are clueless about women and who only want to make a buck. First of all, they refer to the dating scene as "game." Not even "THE game," just "game." How is your game, they ask? And they even have NIGHT GAME and DAY GAME -- the techniques for landing sex are different during the day than during the night at a club. Their tech all boils down to this: how can a guy get laid?

But none of these books are based on any honesty. All of their "wisdom" is based on reducing the male-female interaction to "game" -- not unlike what one hunts for, with a rifle, in a forest. Okay fine, if one can reduce all of life to a "game", I suppose one can reduce copulation to a "game" as well -- but not just "game."

If one acknowledges sex as a "game," it is thus a perverted "game" when males and females fail to recognize their true values and purposes. The American philosopher, L. Ron Hubbard, says a game "consists of freedoms, barriers and purposes." Most men well-know the barriers to sex and in reaction they assert their freedom to be predatory. I maintain however where they fail is in not knowing their purposes as well as they need to -- and the universe seems to punish anything without meaningful purpose -- because to be without is wasteful.

It is said: "People are not born equal. They quickly sort out themselves into winners and losers. Winners get hot girls in bed. Losers go home with nothing but hot girls' pictures. The haves and have-not's."

Losers have lost basically because they have abused the "game". They are thus getting the punishment the universe doles out for violating its tenets, in this case the tenet of NO WELL-DEFINED PURPOSE. Here are the specific, primary items they have violated with respect to this tenet:

1) Such males have not established an exact list of things they want in a female companion. This list should be written down on paper, kept confidential and updated after every failed relationship. If a male does not know what he's looking for -- he is little more than a penis-driven bull in a female-decorated china shop. He's out there wreaking havoc on the world's population with no viable purpose, and the women can spot this pretty easily.

2) Such males have sought to use other human beings for their gratification (when the goal was not mutual). Men extort women for sex and women extort men for support (financial, physical and mental). This quid pro quo, never acknowledged honestly, is only dishonest because it is usually covert and without purpose. The fact that the "law" has made prostitution illegal is what makes this quid pro quo "dishonest." Here is another unintended consequence of government. The "law" has no right dictating the interaction of certain human interactions it cannot hope to codefy.

3) Such males have not considered future generations. The PURPOSE for sex is twofold: procreation and recreation. But men tend to accentuate recreation and women procreation. Thus, to the degree a male does not know what woman would totally satisfy him, he will never be able to find or confront his "ideal" mate. She IS out there (for each man) but he will never be in a position to RECOGNIZE her when the universe randomly causes her to cross his path. He will thus, in a sense, "waste" her. But in wasting her he is also denying her HER highest purpose: creation of the future generation with a man that really WANTS her and understands the PURPOSE for his desire. A woman loves to be desired and wanted, but only by the "right" man. And the "right" man is more likely than not the man who can postulate her close or exact existence before encountering her in physical reality. So when men tamper with the female's mission of maintaining the population of the planet, they will always be doomed by nature. And they tamper with nature whenever they fail to accept the senior reality that nature in its fecundity always creates at least one perfect mate for each and every human being. Why would it do otherwise? There would be no purpose.

It is said: "Alternatives for those who aren't able to compete or simply hate the dating game aren't plentiful. There ARE prostitutes, but they are risky and expensive. There are blow-up sex dolls, but they look more like scarecrows than women. There are realistic silicone love dolls, like Realdoll, but they are unaffordable for most men ($5,000 to $7,000). Also, it goes without saying, they are cold, immobile and like having sex with a corpse."

But all of these "alternatives" are a result of what a male is forced to do because he has committed serious treason to both HIS species and the female species -- all in the name of pleasure and recreation. See points 1 - 3 above. BTW, women instinctively know what I am saying here and this is why they rarely reward a male that is not basically on this program.

It is predicted: "The future will ultimately bring very realistic and affordable love companions endowed with strong AI. As technology advances, SexBots will out-perform real women as sex-partners in every way possible. It will even be possible to program a SexBot to take on different forms and personalities. One night a male may spend an evening with Carmen Electra, the next night he may find Salma Hayek waiting in his bed."

Women have a right to be concerned with procreation AND men have a right to the joys of sex, many of them quite therapeutic as we are now discovering in science. BUT these rights must be exercised in an environment of total honesty and understanding. Right now males and females of the world are being assaulted by the state and the church. Both of these entities -- where they may have served in the past -- are now causing aberrations in the "game of love and sex."

It is postulated: "I don't know if SexBots could easily satisfy women, as they are not attracted to men physically, but to their status and behavior."

This probably true -- even though the Hollywood motion picture does its best to alter womens' behavior. It's true because women tend to assume more responsibility for the sex-act than men. This is because the liability of unwanted pregnancy and the greater propensity of women getting STDs (due to the more internal nature of sex for them) is ever-present. There is also the always-present DNA-drive to procreate that colors a woman's behavior. So, in short, males usually end up conforming to the dictates of female trepidations and behavior in order for sex or pair-bonding to happen. The only way this rule is waved is in the case of other benefits, namely money, fame and/or power.

It is postulated: "SexBots will even out the chances for both sexes. Many guys will be content with artificial companions, but many will also seek real women, and this will be easier due to diminished competition."(1)

I would postulate that the worldwide accomplishment of removing all governments and churches from the bedroom and the sex industry is a must if the destruction of the male-female relationship is to be reversed. Both human and robot prostitution is a right that all males and females enjoy whether or not the state and the church acknowledge such. When any right or dynamic is suppressed by the state or the church it inevitably morphs into an aberration that causes all manner of anti-social behaviors. The current crop of shootings in the schools, pedophiles in the churches, drug addicts in the environment and despotic psychopaths in the governments are all physiognomies of suppression of the sexual dynamic.(2)

(1) In writing this post, I wish to acknowledge the insights and words of APCryo which can be found in the thread at

(2) See for more on this subjecdt and why prostitution should be decriminalized.

ORIGINALTED: 26 January 2013

Please forward this to your mailing list. The mainstream media will probably not address this subject because they have conflicts of interest with their advertisers, stockholders and the political candidates they send campaign contributions to. It's thus up to responsible citizens like you to disseminate important issues so that a healthy public discourse can be initiated or continued. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and future versions of this research paper will reflect them.

Permission is hereby granted to excerpt and publish all or part of this article provided nothing is taken out of context. Please give reference to the source URL.

Any responses you proffer in connection with this research paper when emailed or posted as an article or otherwise, may be mass-disseminated in order to continue a public discourse. Unless you are okay with this, please do not respond to anything sent out. We will make every effort, however, to remove names, emails and personal data before disseminating anything you submit.

Don't forget to watch our documentary films listed below so you will have a better understanding of what we believe fuels most of the problems under study at Jaeger Research Institute. We appreciate you referring these documentary films to others, purchasing copies for your library, screening them for home audiences and displaying them on your public-access TV channels. The proceeds from such purchases go to the production of new documentaries. Thank you.

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list go to but first please be certain you are not suffering from Spamaphobia as addressed at


Mission | Full-Spectrum News | Books & Movies by James Jaeger | Sponsor |
Jaeger Research Institute