>>13423915>women do not like being women Well, that's (possibly) an entirely separate discussion.
>can't imagine themselves having sexYou're circling the answer; what draws fujos to a particular situation is in fact the social hierarchy of the relationship in spite of the fact that it is exactly the same hierarchy that in daily lives they may otherwise rebel against.
It's a very similar psychology to rape fantasies: a good deal of fiction written for women portrays a strapping man who physically and mentally (and possibly socially) dominates the woman, despite the obvious fact that most women would not like to be raped by any particular man in real life.
>it's not a social issue at allExactly. It's too easy to give credit to human intention when much of it is the variations encoded in our genes.
>What are you implying?I would like grant money to study the robosexual? No, sexual gratification from non-'standard' or non-'apparent' sources is not something new at all. It usually has some fairly interesting psychological backing to it, but not always; sometimes it's straight up biologically important.
For instance, homosexuals! In non-humans, particularly, it's fairly well documented as to why natural selection doesn't get rid of homosexuals: most female animals can only mate during certain times of the year (so that, if they live in a temperate zone, they give birth at the time of year that gives the young the longest period of time before the next food shortage: winter). So a male manatee, or whatever, needs to be super-ready to have sex and make babies whenever the hot female manatee is ready. But what if he fucks it up and sticks it somewhere he's not supposed to? He has to practice. And girl manatees are going to be unwilling (it's evolutionarily irresponsible for them to do so). So he's left with (fuck)-boy manatees.
Also, tertiary mating strategies, which is a whole other bag of funsies.
