...
Which brings me to the sex robots.
Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?
After all, he wrote, “one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.”
...
But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.
Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. While “no one has a right to be desired,” at the same time “who is desired and who isn’t is a political question,” which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday. This wouldn’t instantiate a formal right to sex, exactly, but if the new order worked as its revolutionary architects intended, sex would be more justly distributed than it is today.
'via Blog this'
Het heeft geen zin om sex te eisen als je al geen gevoel hebt in je onderlijf, en mocht je ooit contact maken met het gevoel dat sex zo geil maakt dan heb je gegarendeerd al zo een achterstand opgelopen op andere terreinen die er in dat vlak toe doen dat het zinloos blijft omdat men gevoeligheden niet kan veranderen, net zomin als men initiatief kan leren.
Dus het van staatswege democratisch toewijzen van een partner, om de reden dat niet 1% van de bevolking aan iedere vinger 10 minnaars heeft en 1% van de bevoking aan iedere vinger 10 afwijzingen heeft hangen, uiteindelijk door de ultra rechtse deel van de bevolking toch worden doorgedrukt omdat alle leiders in de wereldgeschiedenis uiteindelijk ook dachten recht op sex te hebben uit liefde van en voor het volk. En kapitalisme is dat het volk door revoluties krijgt wat de rijke leiders hadden.
