"Access to sex" isn't a coherent concept, particularly when analogized to "access to income," because "sex" isn't a fungible, transferrable commodity. There's only one way to provide someone with sex: Have sex with them.https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/989535565895864320 …
-
-
I think it's fine to use it as long as we're clear when we do that it does not refer to "people who want to have sex with somebody but are unable to find someone to have sex with."
-
My concern is with elevating a concept that possibly was created to encourage vulnerable boys to embrace arresting sexual development The cat is already out of the bag but I feel like this language coming from reddit was purposely designed and all usages aids in its mission
-
I hear you. But I think at this point there's far more danger in not acknowledging the phenomenon than in acknowledging it, and naming it is necessary to that process.
-
But there's danger in using their words. We can talk about sexual development without it and the words are being used by Hanson & others to pervert logic & decency Angus you're great I dont question your motives it's something that has truly hit me after reading stuff about milo
-
I don't feel like you're pushing at me in an aggressive way. We're good. And the question is a good one. My view is that there's this thing out there called the "incel" movement, and we need to talk about it publicly, so we need to use the name.
-
And honestly, part of my thinking on it being okay to use the name is that the name itself is weird and gross and off-putting. Nobody's going to hear "incel" in isolation and think "I want to get in on that!" It's all in the framing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.