Content Warning: I’m kinda seeing red right now, so I’m going a bit off the hinges with my language, but I’ll try to do talk about this as I would any other topic.
I don’t intend to be civil about this post, or respectful of the author involved as he has not garnered any civility from me with his most recent published article to the New York Times website. Seriously, how the fuck did your editor look at this piece and think to himself, ‘Gee, this is some compelling fucking opinions. People are going to love reading about this!’
Earlier today, an article was published by NYTimes writer Ross Douthat titled ‘The Redistribution of Sex’. Which, that fucking title alone is cringy enough to make any vagina go drier than a Sahara desert. But in light of the recent attack in Toronto by a self-proclaimed “incel” in retaliation for not receiving the fornication, he felt he deserved. Mr. Douche-hat then goes on to suggest, in elaborate detail and political heehaw, that the idea of a redistribution of sex, the very thing the “incel” movement is asking for, isn’t something we should immediately dismiss. In fact, he believes we should be talking about it more!
Oh, believe me, I read it more than a couple times. Your first thought on the resulting arguments of your article should have been the final one. The fact that you think, somehow, every other person who read it, and took the time to write an explanation on how this was a shitty thing to write in a comment almost as long as the article itself, and then for you to suggest these thousands of people, mostly women, are somehow overreacting must be one of the most fucking self-entitled statements I’ve ever heard! Now, don’t think I’m trying to speak from a holier-than-thou position on this. I’ve been the ass-hat on more than one occasion and opened my mouth to make an uninformed opinion as well. But even I had the balls to step up and admit I was speaking out of my ass on something I didn’t understand when I was called out for it. There’s dignity in saying, “You know what? I fucked up. I was wrong to say this, so allow me to remove it and apologize.”
Fuck sake, I’m starting to fixate. So let’s circle back to the article.
Mr. Douche-hat begins by addressing the incident in Toronto, and brings up a quote by Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, who stated, “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.” He then makes a relationship between the work of Hanson, and a recent essay by Amia Srinivasan, an Oxford Professor of Philosophy, on the same recent “incel” attack. And here’s where things get really fucking idiotic.
While Douche-hat suggests that reading both essays make for a great delve into the underlying problems in the “incel” movement, and the comparison between sex redistribution seen as either atrocious or utopian, he thinks the idea should at least be given some thought. He prefaces this by first dismissing the validity of Professor Srinivasan’s essay, “Does anyone have the right to sex?”.
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.
In other words: “Let’s not rule out the option of turning sex into a commodity anyway.”
I took the time to find the original essay by Amia Srinivasan, and read it as well. It’s a long read, but it’s much more informed and addresses many things Douch-hat forgot to mention. Like her analysis on how the self-entitled can create arguments on redistribution and deservingness of sex, just as redistribution is viable in every other major issue. But sex is something that cannot and will not be given because you feel you deserve it. Just as she states below.
But to think that such measures would be enough to alter our sexual desires, to free them entirely from the grooves of discrimination, is naive. And whereas you can quite reasonably demand that a group of children share their sandwiches inclusively, you just can’t do the same with sex. What works in one case will not work in the other. Sex isn’t a sandwich, and it isn’t really like anything else either. There is nothing else so riven with politics and yet so inviolably personal. For better or worse, we must find a way to take sex on its own terms.
[Side note: Word of the Day is “Inviolably”]
The rest of the NYT article details the need for such reconsiderations of sexual experience by insisting there’s a new hierarchy made up of winners and losers. And because the general message about sex is to have as many varied partners as possible, therefore, redistribution is key to, I dunno… leveling the playing field, I guess. Pfft.
But this ideology right here is EXACTLY what the fuck is wrong with the whole concept. it’s ludicrous as shit because “incels” are still looking at all of this as if it’s some kind of competition. The moment you begin to see sex as a prize you should win, you’ve already lost, big time. Their biggest misunderstanding is thinking sex is free for anyone. That there’s some higher social status where beautiful people only fuck other beautiful people just for the hell of it, and the less desirable can only get laid if they pay enough money for it. People have sex because they connect on a level these “incels” clearly have no grasp on. And seriously, if you have to claim you should be getting laid because of your winning personality, then maybe it’s time to swallow the hard pill and realize you don’t.
Mr. Douche-hat then suggests the only other alternative is for all of us to resort back to the ‘virtues’ of old-school monogamy, abstinence, and showing more respect to those who are celibate. Then closes by saying access to sex robots, virtual-reality porn, and sex work all regulated by a new set of changed laws is the only path to true sexual freedom for all. In other words, the government should control our sex lives. I’d like everyone to join me in a collective laugh!
If you want to change things, ask yourself: How can men be taught to experience bearable rejection, rather than unbearable failure?
Finally, for the record: “incel” is not a real thing. Just as MRA isn’t a real thing, nor was that Princes of whatever movement that happened a couple years ago, or the Red Pill. All of these are just different names for what they’ve always been: a big group of self-entitled douchebags wailing and flailing because they’re no longer in control, and can’t wear women down until they settle for them anymore. As a friend of mine pointed out, with this much retaliation from men who want to keep their dominion over women, it’s a sign that we’re winning. By holding strong in our fight to prove that this patriarchal mindset won’t be tolerated anymore, their tantrums are proof that it’s beginning to sink in for them. We can never relent, and we cannot give them any quarter!