My Wednesday column: The Redistribution of Sex, which apparently has many readers on this platform already:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/incels-sex-robots-redistribution.html …
Show this thread
-
When so many descriptions of an argument are unrecognizable to its author, that usually suggests the author failed in some important way. Still, I think hostile readers should consider re-reading the piece and I'll try to have some further thoughts a bit later.
Show this thread
I mean. Yes. People think you are saying the redistribution of sex is good, which is the opposite of what you're saying. The argument is actually "this bad thing is gonna happen bc of y'all's bad sexual ethics," while you let the conservative "stop and go back" bit go unsaid.
-
-
But also that title is irresponsible clickbait, you didn't address the issue of entitlement to female bodies that is at the root of the whole shebang, and there's still something kinda gross about saying "all that 'progress' you said you wanted is gonna get you redistributed!!"
-
Like somehow it would be women's fault if they were commodified. (And worse still, that wanting sex workers to have access to the basic protections of the legal system is gonna get them commodified further.)
- Show replies
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.