So Women are Basically Robots?
-
Frantastic_Miss_Fox — 10 years ago(January 19, 2016 01:44 AM)
Well, technically women don't need men for sex or material needs. Reproductive needs, yes, but there are other ways to fulfil sexual needs that don't require men. Material needs, women can also take care of themselves if they work and earn money. Some women may use men for those things but the majority don't.
-
babuandbabu — 10 years ago(January 19, 2016 02:19 AM)
Well, technically women don't need men for sex or material needs.
I see. But if I see your point
technically
, then what you call sex isn't sex either. I would call that unnatural stimulation of genitals resulting orgasm. According to some sex experts SEX means sex involving male and female genitals. Sex is so ****ed up these days that you can't even define what is sex anymore because of the broad LGBT movement.
Some women may use men for those things but the majority don't.
Then what do those majority of women do? Do they all have a high paying job? Do they all go to a man when they need a baby? Definitely not.
I think your judgement is clouded.
If you're hungry, try a piece of your friend! -
Frantastic_Miss_Fox — 10 years ago(January 19, 2016 05:26 AM)
what you call sex isn't sex either. I would call that unnatural stimulation of genitals resulting orgasm. According to some sex experts SEX means sex involving male and female genitals. Sex is so ****ed up these days that you can't even define what is sex anymore because of the broad LGBT movement.
So, you're saying that lesbians don't have real sex? What about gay guys if sex is 'involving male and female genitals'. Sex is not beep up these days and you can define sex, it just has a broader definition. 'I would call that unnatural stimulation of genitals resulting orgasm.' so you're saying that oral sex or masturbation are unnatural? My judgement is clearly not the one that's clouded.
Then what do those majority of women do? Do they all have a high paying job?
You don't need a high paying job to earn a living and buy yourself things. Do all men have a high paying job? No. Neither do all women. They all still work and earn their own money though. -
babuandbabu — 10 years ago(January 19, 2016 06:06 PM)
so you're saying that oral sex or masturbation are unnatural?
Not saying they are unnatural but not REAL sex either. What I meant by saying unnatural is the way lesbians please each other. So do gays.
You see the semen is meant to go inside the vagina and not into anus or someone's mouth. It's purpose is to impregnate the female. If you still can't figure out what pure sex is then I can't help.
If you're hungry, try a piece of your friend! -
Frantastic_Miss_Fox — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 02:00 AM)
Not saying they are unnatural but not REAL sex either. What I meant by saying unnatural is the way lesbians please each other. So do gays.
But you're contradicting yourself there. 'They're not unnatural, but not real sex. Unnatural is the way lesbians please each other and gays' If oral and masturbation aren't unnatural then how can lesbians and gay guys be unnatural when they do it to each other? Or are you just saying that you think homosexual sex is unnatural? Sex covers a whole range of things. Those things are included and are not unnatural. Homosexual sex is not unnatural either.
You see the semen is meant to go inside the vagina and not into anus or someone's mouth. It's purpose is to impregnate the female.
So every time people have sex and use protection, is that also unnatural? It's supposed to go in and impregnate the female, right? Otherwise, it's not real sex. Also, I really hope you never ask a girl to do anal or to give you a blow job because you clearly think those acts are unnatural, and it would be incredibly hypocritical of you if you were saying they were unnatural when same sex couples do them but fine when you do them. -
babuandbabu — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 04:22 AM)
Sex covers a whole range of things.
It does now. Because man is an intelligent specie & it likes to explore.
So every time people have sex and use protection, is that also unnatural?
It can be unnatural "Technically". Here the same technicality applies by which a woman doesn't necessarily need a man to please herself. Because the man doesn't necessarily need his semen to go inside the girl's vagina yet still enjoy the "thrusting" while using a protection. Why are teenagers advised to use condom while having sex? Because they are unaware (or careless) about the consequences of having sex the "natural way". So they are advised to use an artificial object to prevent themselves from becoming teenage parents.
I really hope you never ask a girl to do anal or to give you a blow job because you clearly think those acts are unnatural, and it would be incredibly hypocritical of you if you were saying they were unnatural when same sex couples do them but fine when you do them.
I never said I don't do it because I think they are unnatural. Man itself has created it's own way against nature since it discovered fire.
Just asking, if a man uses a sex doll to please himself, would you call it sex? because sex covers a whole range of things?
When a man or a girl masturbates, would you call it sex because it's NATURAL?
Giving you a simple example to simplify this SEX thing you are confused about.
Take food for example. Do you know what food is? By definition food is "Any substance that can be metabolized by an animal to give energy and build tissue" or "Any solid substance (as opposed to liquid) that is used as a source of nourishment".
Food's purpose is to give energy to body and to make our immune system stronger. But if food's purpose is that simple, then why do we need so many cuisines? Why so many dishes? Cavemen could eat raw fruits and meat!! Why are there trillions of methods of cooking and preparing a item? Because of "Taste". Which has no relation to the body's nutritional requirement. yet we cook everything and garnish them with so many things that makes it appetizing.
The same way goes for SEX. It is garnished by foreplay acts, blow jobs, anal thrusting and all those things you can include here. But the real purpose of sex is to reproduce which includes male and female genitalia. For men/women reproduction isn't a necessity but the satisfaction of sexual anxiety is (Because man is so clever to avoid nature's rules in all aspects).
The only difference between food and sex is while food still provides nutrition to our body fulfilling it's "REAL" purpose even after cooked and garnished, sex doesn't necessarily fulfill it's real purpose with the mixture of foreplay acts or the "other" things you repeatedly and proudly call natural.
If you're hungry, try a piece of your friend! -
theoncastillo566 — 9 years ago(December 15, 2016 06:42 PM)
He actually does speak the truth and in their have even been studies and rules in male/female relationship in the animal kingdom which support this.
- A woman will only get with a man if she can derive benefits. If no benefits can be obtain then NO association will take place.
- All benefits a woman has received from a man in the past does not at all weigh or affect her being with you in the future.
-
bpollen — 10 years ago(December 13, 2015 09:07 PM)
That's what I was thinking, too. He disregards the cruelty and the sex programming and the making of women machines as nothing more than sex objects and machines, using them for housekeeping and sex and fun and observation..and he thinks the female robot is the evil one.
-
Lady_Elaine_Fairchild — 10 years ago(December 22, 2015 05:05 AM)
I think if someone is having bad experiences with all women then the problem is in the mirror. Women are all wildly different(as are men) and no two ladies are going to react the same to any given experience.
The reason she had the power in this movie was because she had his search history. She could predict his behavior. Oh and he couldn't lie to her.
As a renaissance chick, I paint, write, and sing loudly off-key. -
Frantastic_Miss_Fox — 10 years ago(December 22, 2015 06:15 AM)
I think if someone is having bad experiences with all women then the problem is in the mirror.
I completely agree! I hoped the sarcasm came across in my response. If someone is always having bad experiences with potential girlfriends/boyfriends then the problem lies with the common factor, them. I don't think people like that realise how ridiculous, petty, and sad they come off when they keep blaming an entire gender for things that go wrong in their life and never try to take any responsibility. If every single woman (or man) has left you then surely you must be able to look and see something that you may have done to cause at least some of them. -
CoastalCruiser — 10 years ago(January 28, 2016 09:23 PM)
Those two dudes you're talking to they have issues.
Anyway. I love thinking about Nathan and Ava's character (not characters
character
). I see neither as sociopaths or psychopaths. Although Nathan is highly unlikable to me. If either of them are out of line with the "opposite sex" however it's Nathan. Somehow mistreating machines, even if it turns out they can't feel, since they are in human form, it's a mark against Nathan's character. Of course Nathan could respond back by saying that AI (the goal), does not portend feelings (bots feel pain), and that his fembots give him a harmless, halodeck-like release for his frustrations.
I did not feel that Ava was out of line with Nathan. I pointed out my reasoning in another thread, so will just summarize Ava did not kill Nathan until he forced her to. She did not attack him when he first appeared at the end of the hall. She asked if he would let her out again if she complied with his order to return to her room. Only when she determined he was lying (micro expressions) did she cut in plan B with Kyoko and attack. Just as most humans would if they were locked in a cage. You would kill your captor if it was the only chance for freedom. Right?
Locking Caleb in the room though. Uggh. This is the only scene in the movie I haven't come up with a theory for (not that any of my theories are correct). Some where else someone suggested it may have been symbolic; like the genie is out of the bottle.
Oh. I'm a dude. -
Frantastic_Miss_Fox — 10 years ago(February 02, 2016 02:45 AM)
I agree with your points, the movie makes it clear that the actions of all these characters are not clearly black and white, good or bad. They all have their own selfish reasons for doing the things they do (even Caleb) but just because those reasons are selfish that doesn't automatically make them necessarily wrong or bad and, at the very least, I'd say that everyone's actions and thoughts in the movie are somewhat understandable even if we don't agree with them.
Locking Caleb in the room though. Uggh. This is the only scene in the movie I haven't come up with a theory for (not that any of my theories are correct). Some where else someone suggested it may have been symbolic; like the genie is out of the bottle.
The genie out of the bottle theory is a good one, my personal thoughts on this was that she either A) assumed that Caleb was just like Nathan and was using her just like Nathan was and therefore didn't trust him enough to go with him, B) she thought that if she left with him, there was always a chance that he'd expose her at some point and that she would never truly be free, or C) because she thought that Caleb had an expectation that by helping her, she would be leaving with him and spending her life with him and she didn't want to feel trapped to or by another man. Those were just my thoughts on it though, I could also be wrong. This movie leaves a lot up to the viewer to decide/work out for themselves and I really like that about it. -
CoastalCruiser — 10 years ago(February 02, 2016 06:37 AM)
Hi. Thanx for replying. Good thoughts. And agreed for sure not wrong or bad.
That last point of yours about the movie allowing for personal interpretation many people I've talked to over the years regarding movies in general feel that way. For some reason I always gravitate toward wanting to understand what was in the film makers mind what is the film trying to tell us? Neither point of view is "wrong or bad". ;>
And even my penchant for seeing into the mind of the filmmaker is mitigated by the fact that I've come to understand, from listening to writers and directors talk about their movies, like on the commentary track, that filmmakers often do not fully understand their own creation. That is not a slight to the filmmaker. Rather, it suggests that the creative process taps into a source outside ourselves. If that assertion makes sense.
I just finished viewing Ex Machina for the third time, and of course a few more things clicked in. One thing that jumped out is in the last few frames at the end of the film, besides the Plato man-viewing-shadows-in-a-cave references, when Ava is people watching, she suddenly disappears. One frame she is there, the next frame she is gone. She 'disappears into the crowd'.
So robot or not, the inference seems to be that Ava will somehow assimilate. And I interpret the passage as a suggestion that, at some level at least, robots
can
be made human. The wall between the two is thinner than some may imagine, one significant reason being that humans are often robot like in our daily interactions with the world and with people. If you've seen 'What the Bleep Do We Know' you'd have an idea of what I'm saying.
But again, to balance my assertions Ex Machina to me at this point is simply a catalyst for the kinds of reflections and conversations people are having after viewing the movie. The notion of true artificial intelligence and androids being indistinguishable from humans is pretty far off. I personally worry more about a world that looks like 'Brazil' than a world that looks like 'Blade Runner'. -
Frantastic_Miss_Fox — 10 years ago(February 03, 2016 01:59 AM)
So robot or not, the inference seems to be that Ava will somehow assimilate. And I interpret the passage as a suggestion that, at some level at least, robots can be made human. The wall between the two is thinner than some may imagine, one significant reason being that humans are often robot like in our daily interactions with the world and with people.
Oooh, I like that idea!
My favourite thing about movies and all art forms and forms of entertainment (TV shows, books, songs, etc.) is the fact that everyone will look at them or watch them or hear them and they'll see and feel something different. That's why I find discussions on them so fascinating because I like to see how other people's minds interpreted something compared to mine. I find the OP of this thread's interpretation (and the interpretation of a couple of other posters' that have agreed with him) of this film somewhat concerning but if that's what they took away from it then that's the way their mind decided to view it. -
CoastalCruiser — 10 years ago(February 04, 2016 02:54 AM)
because I like to see how other people's minds interpreted something compared to mine
Interesting. I had a realization while reading your reply that my penchant for wanting to know the
film maker
had in mind is, at one level, just getting the take of someone else regarding the film.
btw- just to let you know, your use of sarcasm in this thread comes through quite well.
Cheers -
jakubmike — 9 years ago(June 03, 2016 10:45 AM)
or D, it was using him as a tool to escape, once he was no longer usefull he was eliminated out of the equasion. I don't think "she" is a true AI, it is a clever chatbot and riddlesolver, as it was programmed to be.
-
Frantastic_Miss_Fox — 10 years ago(December 22, 2015 04:23 AM)
Well, of course. The psychotic, alcoholic, egomaniac can't be the monster. He was just having fun with some technology. That machine he created though, what an ungrateful bitch. I mean it's almost like she didn't want to spend her life as a compliant sex slave.