There were interesting things to think about in @DouthatNYT's piece:
-The value our culture places on sex
-The larger societal question of increasing loneliness
-Potential consequences of sex robots
-The benefits of considering extremist arguments (considering, not agreeing with)
-
-
Show this thread
-
But
@DouthatNYT undermined these interesting elements by indulging rather than rejecting "redistribution of sex," and erroneously assuming the "distribution" was better in 1950. We redistribute objects, like money. Sex isn't an object. It comes from a partnership with a subject.Show this thread -
Claiming that sex (viewed from the societal level) went downhill after the 1950s--which
@DouthatNYT claims often--is myopically male and straight (and just a certain type of straight man too). Ignores domestic abuse, spousal rape, anti-LGBT discrimination, and more awfulness.Show this thread -
Among the biggest changes regarding sex since the 1950s: strides towards female autonomy and LGBT equality. Hard to claim that society would be better off returning to 1950s sexual mores without thinking female autonomy and LGBT equality are undesirable. Or at least not caring.
Show this thread -
That being said, it's true that 21st century society (in US and many other countries) teaches that sex is part of the good life, and there are people who want sex but do not, for whatever reason, find willing partners.
Show this thread -
The incel community is unremittingly awful. But there are normal people--of various ages, genders, sizes, socioeconomic status, abilities--who want sex but can't find willing partners. Is that a societal problem? Not sure. But there is a disconnect with this and a pro-sex culture
Show this thread -
If we accept that this sexual disconnect is a societal problem, sex robots strike me as the least bad solution. Objects fulfill desire; no subject has to be coerced.
@DouthatNYT calls this dystopian. But "redistributing" sex by returning to 1950s mores sounds much worse. (END)Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The whole uncle concept is ridiculous. NO ONE owes anyone sex. Women “especially attractive ones” are not obligated to have sex with any guy who wants it. Does this opinion make me a radical feminist? I don’t think so, but it’s not like I care. The whole thing is stupid.
-
Feminist, but hardly radical. Strikes me as a basic conclusion derived from the belief that people should be treated as people, not objects.
-
I am a very ardent feminist and make no apologies for it. But one only has to be a rational person to see how messed up these incels are.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm glad that you are having a discussion with
@DouthatNYT . I read his book Bad Religion and while I am not nearly as conservative as he is, his assessment of Americanism as a religion isn't far from the truth.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.