"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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @studentactivism
You can have access to things that are not commodities. The White House, for example, is not a commodity, and you might or might not have access to it.
5 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @robinhanson
The White House is public property, so society can provide you with access to it by passing a law that permits you to enter it. Permission to have sex can only be granted by the person having sex, so I can only provide you with access to sex by having sex with you.
2 replies 3 retweets 100 likes -
Replying to @studentactivism @robinhanson
I see that you wrote elsewhere that "giving cash in compensation for low sex" might be a solution to the problem you're describing that doesn't abrogate consent. But there are problems with that as well.
2 replies 1 retweet 49 likes -
Replying to @studentactivism @robinhanson
First, "lack of access to sex" is neither quantifiable nor an externality. How would you determine eligibility for subsidy? Also: subsidizing people who aren't having sex is only a solution to their problem if we assume universal interest in, and access to, sex workers' services.
3 replies 4 retweets 68 likes -
Replying to @studentactivism
There are also many complexities in implementing income redistribution. My comments don't have much to do with these details, as long as advocates do have some specific details that they propose.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robinhanson
"What does it mean to lack access to sex?" isn't a minor question in a discussion of compensating people who supposedly lack access to sex.
4 replies 3 retweets 114 likes -
Replying to @studentactivism @robinhanson
Especially when we consider that, anecdotally, the "incel" communities seem to be rife with people who don't lack access so much as they have unrealistic expectations and narrow ideas about what sort of sexual attention is worth having.
6 replies 21 retweets 215 likes -
Hey,
@robinhanson, if a dude is convinced that he should be "pulling 5s and 6s" and is shooting down "3s and 4s", does that mean he's disqualified? Or partially qualified? Are we going to means test this somehow?3 replies 6 retweets 107 likes -
If a guy is saying he "would never date a Stacy" or "wouldn't stick [his penis] inside a 'roastie'" (a, uh, let's go with "term of art" for a woman who has noticeable external labia), are theystill entitled to compensation, sexual or otherwise, for their so-called lack of access?
1 reply 4 retweets 92 likes
Can’t wait for the PUA community to take over as case examiners for Incel sexual compensation claims
-
-
Replying to @dcodea @alexandraerin and
Will they call it Incel Court and televise the trials?
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @SJGrunewald @alexandraerin and
PUA-eye for the the Incel-guy
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likes -
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.