Anyway the latest news from Egypt is that archeologists found a pharaoh’s butler in an underground tomb. I always wonder in these situations whether the butler was dead before he got wrapped up.

I can imagine the scene 3,000 years ago at the reading of the pharaoh’s will. The butler is standing there all hopeful, thinking “I finally have my freedom. Now all I want is that golden goblet that was over the fireplace, and I’m set for life. I told him a thousand times how much I liked it. Please, please, please.”

Then the Egyptian lawyer reads the will, and when it gets to the part about the butler it says, “Wrap up what-his-name and stick him in the tomb. I might need him in the afterlife.”

Worst… boss… ever.

For the record, I believe that any kind of work is noble. We can’t all be pharaohs. Someone has to answer the door. But I doubt the archeologists were feeling that way when they discovered the mummy of a butler. It’s probably embarrassing when the archeaologists get together. I can imagine the introductions:

“This is Bob; he found Ramses II. And this is Larry; he found Tutankhamen. And this is Bruce; he found that butler. You all remember the butler, right?”

And then Larry – who is sort of an asshole in archeological circles – would say something like, “Butler, eh? I have three of those in my garage, and I turned the fourth one into a coffee table for my guest house. It takes a lot of sanding.”

I can’t wait to see the traveling exhibit of the butler mummy. For marketing reasons, they’ll probably shorten the name, the same way Tutankhamen became Tut. Anyway, I assume the “But” exhibit will visit the smaller venues that can’t afford things like a dead pharaoh or a school system.

I don’t imagine the But exhibit would command a high ticket price, and the promoters probably need to offer something extra. Perhaps they could encourage visitors to bring tweezers and take a little chunk of the butler mummy home with them, at least until it’s all gone. It would be a good deal, except for the people who bought a ticket for the last show.

Did you see the gossip news about actor Ralph Fiennes? He was on a long flight to India as part of his STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) awareness program. The New York Post alleges that he had sex with a flight attendant in the airline bathroom. The flight attendant says there was no sex, that he just followed her in there and made a move that she rejected. He isn’t commenting and some new are reporting she got fired.

http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/hotgossip/2-14-07_5?GT1=7701

My question to you is this: How horny do you have to be before you’ll follow a flight attendant into an airline bathroom, knowing that she actually has to use the bathroom? I mean, does that move ever work?

I can barely convince myself that ANYONE has ever had sex in an airline bathroom. And that includes the best-case scenarios where:

1. The couple are already lovers
2. Neither person needs to actually USE the bathroom at that moment
3. Neither person is on an STD awareness tour
4. Both lovers are blind, noseless people with disposable shoes.

Maybe when you’re a famous and handsome actor, you don’t need to work so hard on getting just the right lighting and ambiance to close the deal. I imagine that Brad Pitt could seduce a cheerleader in an open sewer. Maybe when famous actors get together, they brag about their conquests in challenging settings:

“One night, after the Golden Globes, I had a threesome in a dumpster behind a seafood restaurant.”

“That’s nothing. I once shagged a supermodel on the sidewalk in the middle of the day, using only a wino as a bed. She was on the bottom, so it wasn’t as gross as it sounds.”

“That’s nothing. I did a widow during her husband’s funeral. Luckily, he was a little guy, so the three of us fit inside the casket.”

The New York Post story about Ralph Fiennes doesn’t mention whether he “allegedly” kept humping the rest of the airline crew or if he stopped after the one. I suspect that the only reason the pilot and co-pilot were safe is that they were behind terrorist-proof doors. Still, it was a long flight, and Ralph probably waited for them to use the restroom before pouncing. He’ll be insufferable at the next bragfest of Hollywood hunks:

Ralph: “I had the entire airline crew, plus the passengers in rows 1A through 23C. I only stopped because I was on an STD awareness tour and I ran out of condoms. That’s the problem with being a role model.”

In a post last week, I asked how many of you guys would have sex with a robot if it was indistinguishable from a hot human woman. No one answered! I know you are shy…its ok!. However the conclusion from the documentary was about 95% of the hetero guys said they would. The other 5% expressed a strong preference for lying.

Based on those numbers and responses in the documentary, it seems that every guy has his own threshold for the quality of the robot. Some guys would only consider tapping the robot if it was indistinguishable from an attractive human woman. Other guys are already humping their computers (internet).

Many of them said they would only have sex with the robot if it was brand new. But what happens after six months of monogamous robot love when you find a sticker on its foot that says “Inspected by Carl”?

I would be concerned if the software in the robot would be provided by Microsoft. First of all, I think we can all agree that the name “Microsoft” is bad branding for sex robot software. But that’s not the biggest problem. One software malfunction and you’ll have to call the fire department to get your pecker off the roof.

I would write more, but I suspect it would all be downhill from here.

They say that many technologies owe their existence to sex. Porn drove the cost of VCRs down, for example. And porn was the early fuel for the growth of the Internet. I see one more area where this phenomenon is likely to repeat: robots.

I saw this documentary on Danish TV the other day; 

Have you heard about the company that’s making realistic life-sized sex dolls? They cost up to $10,000. I haven’t seen one in person (really, I haven’t) but they reportedly weigh as much as a real person and are eerily lifelike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealDoll

The company that makes the doll is reportedly working on artificial intelligence. That shouldn’t be too challenging. No one wants their sex doll to be all chatty anyway. There are already a variety of chatbots on the Internet that can simulate real conversation. Slap one of those programs into a chip, add a small speaker into the sex doll’s head and you’re in business.

At that point, you’ll essentially have a simulated hot chick that can make conversation but is otherwise paralyzed. I have to think it would be creepy if the doll looked like a woman, and talked like a woman, but couldn’t move. You could accessorize her with a hospital bed and some tubes in her arms, but that is only a temporary solution. Full robotic motion will surely be developed soon.

Obviously the first body parts to get the robotic functions will the, um, most marketable parts of the doll. But eventually that doll is going to be baking cookies and fetching the remote control. It’s only a matter of time.

Today I will ask you the most frightening question you will ever see on the Internet. It’s a hypothetical, just for the guys.

QUESTION: Hypothetically, in the future, if a sex doll robot was indistinguishable from a human woman, and you weren’t in a relationship with a human, would you tap the robot?