Imagining Sex Redistribution
medium.com
medium.com
The incel sex redistribution madness in my opinion isn't silly because it tries to commodify sexual services, it's silly because it effectively becomes forced prostitution of the entire nation for the benefit of an extreme minority who are only heard by the public because their ideas are extreme enough to be funny to laymen so they get pushed by social media and in newspapers.
I suspect most people here know someone who qualifies as an incel (the harmless kind) and so I don't think it's such an insignificant minority. I know I've had dry periods when I've gotten too busy with work or life. The difference is that I know how to get back on the horse. Incels absolutely have no clue what to do. Their growth is stunted.
Too bad, it's a topic that should be discussed. Previously, societal shame forced people to get married and stay monogamous (or at least give that impression). Once this no longer existed, the incel was born.
It's just evolution, IMO. But young men with no career/family prospects and no sex are quite possibly the most dangerous kinds.
> 3. Redistributing actual money income and wealth in a way that prioritizes human well-being. A Universal Basic Income could go a long way toward ending the domestic abuse of women and girls, and would help people to approach each other more as equals in the sexual field. This would open up more sexual opportunities to everyone.
I think this is an important point that made the article worth reading. Some young women are taken advantage of by men who've learned how to push their buttons. I have a friend who was traumatized when she let herself be intimate with males who weren't actually that interested in her...
Sometimes I find myself offering relationship advice to women. Last week I met a lady who had a neat story about how she met her husband. Her sister had dragged her to a wedding, future-husband stood up across the room, and she was 'instantly' intrigued. (This woman thought she wasn't very "intuitive", which is why I asked if she was in a relationship. She'd tried to protest that she didn't want to go to that wedding, but eventually "JUST GO!" won out.)
I gave her a rendition of "the difference between boys and girls" [0], which she found to be quite amusing. For the most part, for women finding a relationship is a matter of screening out the men they aren't interested in. Men are biologically programmed to be interested in having "marital relations" with any number of women who don't reciprocate, and it's mostly a numbers game of expressing interest until you find someone who is interested.
[0] https://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-boys...
Relationship coaching for men is mostly about teaching them how to be less obnoxious.
Sex Redistribution is silly not just because it would be forced prostitution, but also since it doesn't address the core issue for that demographic. Loneliness is a difficult problem and groups like incel are a symptom. Reduce loneliness overall in society and groups like incel would stop to exist.
Criticism, as far as I read, is towards the idea of sex redistribution, rather than anything (or anyone) else.
Have you guys ever heard the thing about social movements and pendulums? The pendulum swung way, _way_ too far after the sexual revolution.
2) the fact that 'incels' are an actual named group with an identity and discussion surrounding them deeply disturbs something within me. I feel simultaneously that free speech must be upheld but that we cannot give these people a platform. This dissonace is uncomfortable. I also feel that identity politics is is generally bad and that it caused this: the emphasis on all experiences and ideas being special and valuable, and the idea that people with similar apolitical characteristics can and should support each other politically, set the stage for this.
3) There is nothing inherently wrong with sex workers or sex robots but I still wish that myself, my friends, and my family never have a need for them.
To sum up some thoughts and respond to sibling comments: Sex is beautiful but can be horrifying. So much evil has come from it. It seems to me that it should be a private thing done in moderation. 'Private' could include multiple partners or whatever you're into, and 'moderation' could mean different things for different people, I suppose. But the idea is respect and humility and that is found nowhere in this article. Sex "work" seems like a twisted oxymoron, as does a sex "coach". But both may be practical and necessary, I don't know.
I admit this is not really rational argument but an emotional appeal. Is there still room for that in the modern world?
The people suggesting redistribution of sex are politicians in response to the incel who went on a rampage killing people because he couldn’t get laid.
For 3 sex work is work, like any job it can have fun bits, but at the same time I know former sex workers (weirdly enough it’s a field that becomes less employable as you get older) who said it was a lot of work. You aren’t necessarily doing things you enjoy, but you have to appear like you do. Also apparently golden showers are/were popular which meant they were drinking continuously and holding it. Chafing is a thug, etc.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comment, but are you maybe misinterpreting the article's intention?
Many incels believe sex redistribution should be a thing. Rather than just say "Yeah, no, you guys are crazy" and then ignoring it, the author feels a better way to fight the belief in redistribution is to humor the suggestion and point out how absurd it would actually be in practice. The author is in no way suggesting that such a practice should ever be implemented.
> The sex robots at the end made it a one-two punch, too.
What's wrong with sex robots?
Socialized healthcare doesn't mean someone comes and takes my marrow, my blood or one of my kidneys when they need them, it just means that my taxes fund healthcare. So why can't it work the same way for sex, if needed?
Universal/single payer healthcare isn’t all cancer treatments and life saving drugs.
You say they 'should be' but do not justify it. In order to claim something 'ought' to be some way, you need to justify it. Not that it really affects your non-existent argument, but the government of the United States does not agree with you. For example, closely held corporations are not required to pay for drugs they morally disagree with, whereas the government can't make these distinctions, as long as the drug is legal.
She claims despite all the legal status in Amsterdam, they are still mostly women with psychological issues, drug problems or straight up trafficked, which I find hard to believe, but made me more open to the idea.
The discussions in the article sound like type of commodification and alienation that would have Marx spinning in his grave.
Ok, but the article is about people who are not in a relationship (monogamous or otherwise) so for them it's not a solved problem.
It illustrated the folly in numerous ways, most importantly (in my mind and for this specific case) that incels are generally able bodied young-middle aged men who wouldn’t be considered unduly prevented from getting laid themselves (vs the disabled and elderly).
Also monogamy doesn’t solve this problem at all: that’s basically the same as saying the solution to people being unable to get a relationship is for them to have a relationship.
I don't know about that - it definitely commoditizes sex a bit too much for me. Why even bother with the difficulty of relationships and love when you can get your carnal needs met so easily?
Because relationships are far more than just a path to satisfying the carnal need to have sex.
When I was single, I had a friend-with-benefits. Any time I wanted sex, I could just give her a call.
But that kind of relationship doesn't satisfy the desire for companionship. I had no interest in dating her because our personalities don't really work together.
In that case, some people (capitalists) would be getting lots of other peoples' (workers') orgasms, and so it would eeem quite fair (though complex) to redistribute them.
so it would eeem quite fair (though complex) to redistribute them
I read that as a bit of ajitprop against the idea of redistribution. There are two kinds of voluntary redistribution that have worked to prevent the basic psychological conflict that arises from relative poverty. The sharing of benefits to large numbers of the public, and an economy that lets large numbers of people participate. The former wouldn't work with sex very easily. The latter has historical precedent.
Isn't that plainly the case? The distribution of sex experiences is likely very skewed, just inferring from network effects.
The capitalism mapping would be that, as a worker, you do the seduction, foreplay, and most of the build-up, and then hand the profits, the orgasm, to the owner of the venue that facilitated the encounter.
And those owners are getting far more orgasms that they can possibly enjoy directly, it becomes about the pleasure they get from the power of having so much more than everyone else.
Does sex really need to a taboo topic here? (I guess it is the keyword, otherwise the article is about an interesting thought experiment.)
I followed the link because I think sex is an important topic, and should be anti-taboo. I flagged it because I think it's a bad article. I mean, I'm not riled up about it, but I don't think it's contributing in a positive way (though I do think the author is trying).
On the bright side, I followed some suggested links at the bottom of the page, and read a few short pieces that I thought were better-written, so there's that.
There are plenty of articles I furiously disagree with. I never flag them for that reason (in fact, it never occurred to me that I should flag things for that reason). For example, for one which was IMHO a pseudo-intellectual fest (and even harmful for people not knowing much about AI): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17537907
Just curious, which links did you like?
Evolution made us the best species in the history of the galaxy. Let's not fuck it up now because some loser can't get laid.