For whom? Certainly not for me, I'm quite willing to pay a cost premium for real meat. For poor third-world villagers, then? I have my doubts. I mean, so many

For whom? Certainly not for me, I'm quite willing to pay a cost premium for real meat. For poor third-world villagers, then? I have my doubts. I mean, so many cultures in the world attach so much cultural significance to eating meat, and the less often you get to eat it the more significant it is. That is a pretty weird false dichotomy there, and I don't know if you intended it, but you basically just divided the world into "people who can afford and are willing to pay extra for real meat" and "third-world villagers". Also, meat substitutes are already winning on price in some Asian cultures. You'd think that "feels just like a real vagina, only much cheaper and less trouble" would be a selling point, but it turns out that they're significantly less popular than the real thing. And then you followed it up with one of the worst, and most sexist analogies I've ever seen. First of all, why it's sexist: for your analogy to work, you must assume that the difference between a fleshlight and a real vagina is less than (or at least comparable to) the difference between meat and meat substitutes. One of the principal differences between fleshlights and real vaginas is that real vaginas have women attached to them. So if your analogy is to work at all, we must accept that the significance of a woman is less than the significance of the difference between fake and real meat. Preposterous. Secondly, why the analogy fails anyway: I think you'll find that if it were a contest to see what's rubbing penises the most, men's hands would be winning by a landslide.