Ashley Madison users who are annoyed that they wasted money chatting with robots have no reason to be upset — it turns out the company told them all about it in its terms of service. The Guardian points out that before signing up with Ashley Madison, users had to agree that they understood that not all profiles on the site would be of real people and that the website created its own profiles for its own purposes.

BACKGROUND: How Ashley Madison conned users into paying to flirt with fembots

“We may create several different profiles that we attach to a given picture,” the terms read. “You understand and acknowledge that we create these profiles and that these profiles are not based on or associated with any user or Member of our Service or any other real person. You also acknowledge and agree that the descriptions, pictures and information included in such profiles are provided primarily for your amusement and to assist you navigate and learn about our Site. As part of this feature, the profiles may offer, initiate or send winks, private keys, and virtual gifts. Any one of these profiles may message with multiple users at the same or substantially the same times just like our users.”

Ashley Madison has a credit-based system where if someone messages you, you have to buy a credit to message them back. Many users who got pinged by these robots claim they had to buy credits to interact with them and felt the website was being deceptive. Ashley Madison said that “criminal elements” were behind these fake profiles and pledged to refund any users who paid money to flirt with robots.

However, the ToS state very clearly that users would be getting messages from these robo-profiles, so they really don’t have a leg to stand on if they try suing Ashley Madison for fraud in court.

So if you’re signing up for a shady website like Ashley Madison with a dodgy reputation, read the terms of service before taking the plunge.

Have you considered entering an isolation tank? It can be a real trip. It’s not some new-age fad though. It’s actually a pretty old practice. From Wikipedia:

“John C. Lilly, a medical practitioner and neuro-psychiatrist, developed the flotation tank in 1954. During his training in psychoanalysis at the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), Lilly commenced experiments with sensory deprivation. In neurophysiology, there had been an open question as to what keeps the brain going and the origin of its energy sources.

One hypothesis was that the energy sources are biological and internal and do not depend upon the outside environment. It was argued that if all stimuli are cut off to the brain then the brain would go to sleep. Lilly decided to test this hypothesis and, with this in mind, created an environment which totally isolated an individual from external stimulation. From here, he studied the origin of consciousness and its relation to the brain.

Peter Suedfeld and Roderick Borrie of the University of British Columbia began experimenting on the therapeutic benefits of flotation tank usage in the late 1970s. They named their technique “Restricted Environmental Stimulation Therapy” (REST).

Now, in a stroke of scary genius, someone is working on artificial intelligence that will allow these animatronic sex slaves to have filthy conversations with you.

She is a (BT4) Config. 1 sex doll with with deep mouth insert, advanced weight reduction throughout body. 2nd generation including new skeletal refinements for improved positioning (hips/shoulders). At 4’10” height, Solana weighs in under 70lb, with measurents 32 – 22 – 36 and 32 DD bra. Price: US$7.272 (as configured). Click here for more photos and configuration details.

1. Dildos and dil-dont’s

One of the weirder books in the Bible (and we say that with a pillar of salt) is Ezekiel, who is a visionary and possibly God’s first experiment with LSD. In Ezekiel, God is pissed about Israel’s idolatry and immorality, such as all the jewelry that Judah (the town, who is described as an adulterous wife-prostitute for some reason) is turning into dildos.

“You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.” (Ezekiel 16:17)

Wives! So inconsiderate, amirite? You take the time and money to give some nice bling to your doting lady, and she goes and turns them into dongs and whores herself out with them. Next time, you should probably go with flowers, Zeke.

2. Women are the worst, part two

Deuteronomy is basically a big, weird pep talk from Moses where he explains God’s rules, such as when to marry your sister-in-law (if you’re confused, here’s a breakdown in Legos), when to muzzle one’s ox, and when to never seize a man’s genitals:

“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

So, wait a minute. Two bros are out fighting and then a wife comes to rescue her husband who’s getting beaten up, but then tries to initiate a menage a trois? There’s a time and a place, girlfriend! And it is not during Fight Club. There’s no orgies in fight club, as the little known third rule goes. We think, perhaps, that the real reason this gal is slated to get her hand cut off is because she caught her hubby having some gay sex with his fellow countryman and was like, “When in Israel…” and tried to join, but they were having none of that. But that’s just our guess.

3. Boobs and dongs

Ezekiel is back and with weirder sexual imagery than a David Lynch/Mitchell Brothers film.

“When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.” (Ezekiel 23:18-21)

Men were hung like donkeys and boobs were ripe for fondling? How awful. We totally see why you would want to leave that place.

4. More boobs

In an attempt to avoid “loose” women who will surely ruin you with their words of oil and honey, Proverbs tries to teach men to love their wives whom they’ve had since they were young: “A loving doe, a graceful deer — may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love.” (Proverbs 5:19)

Aww, that’s kind of sweet. Unless we’re still talking about the deer. Then, um.

5. Still more boobs

Solomon’s Song of Songs could put any Fifty Shades of Grey passage to shame. The book is supposed to be an allegory for God’s love, but it reads very much like an erotic poem. As a friend put it, “Song of Solomon particularly puzzled me as a child. My Bible school teacher tried to tell us it was a man’s love letter to God. Well, God apparently has nice tits.” Here’s a small sampling:

“Your breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle.” (7.3)

Again with the deer imagery. And now, gazelles!

“Your stature is like that of the palm, and your breasts like clusters of fruit.” (7.7)

“My lover is to me a sachet of myrrh resting between my breasts.” (1:13)

Okay, my boobs are woodland creatures, palm trees, and myrrh. We’re getting confused here, Solomon. Are we playing twenty questions? Is “mineral” next?

“I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers. Thus I have become in his eyes like one bringing contentment.” (8:10)

Towers? Well that’s kind of a stretch, but we guess it’s better than grapes.

“Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits.” (4:16)

If that’s not cunnilingus, we don’t know what is.

And then there’s this: “My beloved put his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.” (5:4)

Holy crap — literally.

6. A marriage dowry in foreskins

In Samuel, King Saul’s daughter had the hots for David (of Goliath-slaying fame) and, though Saul was not fond of David (he thought David was trying to steal his throne), Saul still planned to use his daughter to ensnare David, and so agreed to the marriage. But David was skeptical. He said “Do you think it is a small matter to become the king’s son-in-law? I’m only a poor man and little known.”

When Saul’s servants told him what David had said, Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” (1 Samuel 18:20-30)

Dowries ARE rather old-fashioned, but well, would you settle perhaps for something less brutal than a hundred Philistine foreskins? It’s just that we’re rather strapped for time, Saul. We hear Bed Bath and Beyond is having a sale on monogrammed towels, for instance.

7. More foreskin

Zipporah, the wife of Moses, has a tale in Exodus that is pretty universally agreed-upon as crazy. What happened is that, after the burning bush incident, Moses is headed back to Egypt to free the slaves. While en route, God tries to kill Moses in their tent, for some reason. So Zipporah, during the scuffle, grabs God’s genitals and then he cuts off her hand! Just kidding, sorry, we can’t get over that Deuteronomy bit. No, she takes a rock to their baby son’s genitals and circumcises him that way. It’s written as such:

“Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet, and she said, ‘You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me.’” (Exodus 4:25)

It’s surmised that Zipporah did this because circumcision was how God knew who his chosen peeps were. Yet, you would think God would have simply told Moses that instead of trying to kill him in the night. Though we can’t entirely blame him. We, too, have been surprised by an occasional dong coozy surprise in the night, and reached for the nearest rock.

8. A “Lot” of trouble

Most people only think of Lot in terms of his wife, whom God turned into a pillar of salt as he “rain[ed] destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah.” (You don’t like it, eh? Poof! You are now an incredibly useful preservative!) But Lot’s story is also very weird and raunchy in its own right. Let’s (s)examine.

Attempted angel rape

Most have probably read or heard about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Feel free to read the whole thing in Genesis if you’re so inclined). To paraphrase: God sent two angels to Sodom to see if it was really as wicked as he read on PerezHilton.com. The angels (in the guise of old men) stayed with Lot, and once word got out, the entire city came to Lot’s door demanding to “know” the angels. (Genesis 19:5) (“Know” in this instance probably means sex. The same Hebrew word was used in Judges in regard to a group of men raping a woman to death, which scholars are fairly sure doesn’t mean “They asked her about her Etsy blog.”

Lot, ever the good host, offered his virgin daughters to the angry mob instead (and this was BEFORE they date-raped him — more on that to come — so really, someone take Lot’s Father of the Year award away), but the mob refuses. The angels, at this point, are like, “Enough, guys,” blinds them, and then God destroys the city.

Somehow this story is used to condemn homosexuality, even though why would you offer a mob of angry gay men two women to appease them? Also, not that we don’t find silver foxes bangable, but well, this seems more like a case of insane violence than, you know, a fun gay orgy. But let’s continue.

Incest-y date rape

After Sodom was destroyed, Lot took his two daughters to live with them in a cave (like ya do). One day, his older daughter said to the younger:

“Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children — as is the custom all over the earth. Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.” (Genesis 19:30)

This plan worked out so well that the younger daughter did it the following night, with Lot being entirely unaware of it again, somehow!

“So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.” (Genesis 19:35)

That’s the end! Nothing bad happens to these folks. They bear sons and name them Moab and Ben. To recap: Roofie-ing one’s elderly father and raping him = fine. Agreeing to lead a slave rebellion for God but forget to circumcise your infant son = DEATH.

One of the worst parts about having sex with a doll is that you’re having sex with a doll. Now, in a stroke of scary genius, someone is working on artificial intelligence that will allow these animatronic sex slaves to have filthy conversations with you.

It’s like an X-Rated version of that scene from the original Toy Story where Buzz Lightyear sees all the other Buzzes.

Matt McCullen is the inventor of the RealDoll, but wants to up the ante by infusing A.I. with his popular line of sexual surrogates.
Kill me-e-ee-ee…….

This is the $10,000 head you’ll be able to attach to your current RealDoll (I mean who doesn’t have one, right?) The doll talks and even responds to your questions, here’s a sample conversation below:

M: “What are some of your features?”

R: “I am equipped with sensors, to maximize my effectiveness doing sexual activity.”

M: “So, you’re going to be able to actually, have sex then?”

R: “Robotics in the bedroom! Sounds like fun.”

You know, programmed with the right A.I., I could see this thing being used as a low-cost substitute teacher in a pinch. Let’s just keep it away from High-Schools, though.
“You have a beautiful smile, sex robot was it? Do you come here often?”

The A.I. is also being programmed to respond to touch. McCullen even compares the robo-sexual experience to playing Rock Band. There’s no word as to whether or not you’ll be able to use the RealDoll as a controller in the popular gaming franchise, or how the hell that would even work.

Go ahead. Watch how our end begins.

[Via Yatzu.com]

Thailand’s government has warned the country’s women they may face up to five years in prison for posting ‘underboob selfies’ online.

The trend, which has gone viral, involves women taking a photograph of the lower half of their exposed breasts and uploading them on to social media sites.

Celebrity fans include Rihanna and Nicki Minaj. And the pastime is becoming increasingly popular in the South East Asian nation.

But Thailand’s military government has now claimed the practice is “inappropriate” and may violate it’s laws. The country’s 2007 Computer Crimes Act bans ‘obscene computer data, which is accessible to the public’, as well as material that may cause ‘damage to the country’s security or causes public panic’.

The law doesn’t specifically state anything about naked breasts.

The population of Thailand is estimated to be 63 million with women making up 51 per cent of that total.

Officials explained that anyone posting underboob selfies online may face prosecution.

A spokesperson from the culture ministry added that a jail-term of up to five years would be applicable.

“When people take these ‘underboob selfies’ no one can see their faces,” reported Reuters. “So it’s like, we don’t know who these belong to, and it encourages others to do the same.

“We can only warn people to not take it up. They are inappropriate actions.”

It is not known how the government intends to identify culprits, who often have their faces obscured.

Thai ministers has been criticised in the past for its overzealous censorship of film, music and television in an apparent attempt to distance the country from Western culture.

The news comes as Facebook announced an overhaul of its rules about what can and can’t be posted on the social network, with bare backsides, genitals and breasts showing nipples banned – unless they are “actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring”.

The site didn’t specify anything relating to the underboob trend.

Via Telegraph.co.uk

Men seem to just love showing off their parts to women unsolicited, in all their slightly shadowy, pixelated glory. But if the thinking is that women will appreciate the sentiment and find it a turn-on, most men are sorely mistaken.

The best proof of this? The women’s horrified and hilarious responses in the video “Women React to **** Pics!” created by vlogger Davey. Forget being turned on — the more common response was a cringe-filled “ewww.”

In response to a photo that is “more balls than dick”: “I hope he finds ways to use this and empowers someone. Hopefully he has a good personality too.”

In response to a “huge monstrous elephant dick”: “See, if I got this **** pic, I’d be like, ‘No, we can’t fuck. Like, I can’t do this.”

Oh, and this: “I ******* hate you.”

We bet that’s not what guys are going for when they hit “send.”

What men think women want, they really don’t.

If the women’s reactions in the video weren’t convincing enough for men, the data should speak loud and clear. Match.com’s annual Singles in America survey, which spoke to 5,675 American singles 18 and over, recently revealed that men are into “sexy texts,” but women specifically don’t want “sexy tIf the women’s reactions in the video weren’t convincing enough for men, the data should speak loud and clear. Match.com’s annual Singles in America survey, which spoke to 5,675 American singles 18 and over, recently revealed that men are into “sexy texts,” but women specifically don’t want “sexy texts” or “sexy photos” from guys.

“I think that a man wants to see a woman’s body and a woman may want to see a man in the picture with … a Rolex watch or a business suit or a pair of cool jeans,” said Helen Fisher, Match.com’s chief scientific adviser, according to the New York Observer. exts” or “sexy photos” from guys.

“I think that a man wants to see a woman’s body and a woman may want to see a man in the picture with … a Rolex watch or a business suit or a pair of cool jeans,” said Helen Fisher, Match.com’s chief scientific adviser, according to the New York Observer.

Yet men keeping sending them. Survey data from Match.com in 2013 found that 45% of women had received a “sext” photo from men online. And they don’t necessarily think they’re doing anything wrong — in fact, some men think women appreciate it. Gerry, 23, told Refinery29, “I’ve mostly sent [dick pics] after a few flirtations back and forth with girls I’ve met online who seemed to want to hook up. Who wouldn’t want to be sent free porn?”

Via Guff.com