Way to go, in the Self-Knowledge department ! That's not a pleasant card to be dealt, but I have read some about your condition, and I applaud the degree to which you understand your most significant difference from the masses. Compared to most folks, that's a boldly examined life.1024 wrote:Nevertheless, here goes, and this is probably more difficult to me than admitting that I find the idea of female robots very, umm, sexy. It's something that only one person in real life knows about, but it may be relevant to Keizo's question. I think a factor in me being here is a problem with relationships in the real world, but not because of any physical disability, rather a neurological condition - Asperger's Syndrome, it's an autism related disorder but very much at the mild end of the spectrum, it doesn't affect general intelligence, just stuff like reading body language and understanding what other people are thinking. Most affected people can learn to get by and live relatively normal lives but we'll never really be fluent in interpersonal stuff, it's all a foreign language to us, I've heard it described as "Oops, Wrong Planet!" syndrome and that seems about right to me. Machines on the other hand are logical and easy to understand, perhaps that's why I'm attracted to them.
IK
What you said rings very true with my theories about what makes us different. I think I'm in between you and the masses, because I'm a rather phenomenal communicator, but my aroused persona needs that confusion between female object and subject. Not that gynoids won't happen, but the imagery of gynoids is a myth of our times, as Roman and Greeks Gods were perfect, immortal, immutable in their Age, good enough as robots considering their superiorities.
As a child, children never made much sense to me. Or maybe I was too cerebral, talking like Fox Network's John Doe. Maybe I understood them, and I was only disappointed by their unsophistication. It may not have been my preferred language/planet, but I could read it. I wasn't very convincing, trying to act as other kids did.
I've got weird genes, and my father was so orientation confused that he only came out of the closet at the age of 55. Forgive me for saying so, but those are not the strongest, well-balanced gene variants. It's not wrong for us non-hypernormals to be who we are; I'm not a hater, don't misunderstand. It's just that mine are not genes I care to indiscriminately pass on - odds are they don't add up to offspring of median health or beauty or conventional orientation. My father's brother is gay, and so was their father, in Germany before WWII (Youwch!). I'm the only heterosexual male left on that side of the family, and given my presence here, I would have to say that I do have something in common with my relatives, if I may use the word "perversion" in a totally non-judgemental way; meaning distortion of the ideal from a species-reproduction perspective.
We would crave cyber-companionship from a mind we could fully comprehend, and which we would engineer so as to avoid all social and interpersonal conflicts. Some(one/thing) perhaps also who felt that females should mirror, reproduce, and validate the imagery of our non-human (i.e. fetish) attraction to a perfected synthetic being, over a hypothetical perfect organic female partner.
I think my nervous system doesn't work very well when aroused, and the motions and nonsensical breakdown routines of imaginary partners are an externalization of my internal sensations and feedback from my body's nerves. They tell me, when I feel sexy, thinking about gynoid motion and thought reinforces those sensations, as only one's own fetish can.
If we had full genetic data of the whole gang here, and as much self-knowledge and honesty as you offered us readers, we could likely understand how we got into this club in the first place... which fascinates me. It would be naming, validating.
Dale Coba
: 
[ 
... ... 
]
), but as the baron says there seems to be a good bunch of folk here.
