Since we're so into thought experiments: What if we *didn't* organize our cultural mores around white heterosexual men's happiness, comfort, and sexual satisfaction?
Pretty much everyone is against the Incel movement. The point is that the government should be concerned with sex, one of the most important parts of being human.
-
-
Pretty sure most dudes come equipped with a right hand. I don't see how women's bodies are less important that an occasionally tired male wrist.
-
Sex is more about dealing with alienation. It’s a fundementally part of being human generally. That’s why the idea of a right to sex is not so different from a right to healthcare
-
Do folks have a ‘right’ to friends? Community? A group to hang out with on Friday night? Is human connection a ‘right’ to be legislated by gov’t?
-
I think there’s a plausible argument for a right to friendship
-
Good. You go be friends with them. It can be your vocation - and while you're there maybe talk to them a bit about women being actual people and not party prizes or property. Thanks, that'd be great.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
No it shouldn't. For X to have sex, Y has to also have it. Any legal requirement that X has sex thus inherently violates Y's human rights and is immoral and unconstitutional. Government should be concerned with protecting both X and Y's bodily autonomy, and that is all.
-
That sounds libertarian. The government does a lot besides protecting bodily autonomy- it also provides public education
-
I don't mean govt overall should ONLY be concerned with bodily autonomy, you clearly read too fast. I mean that in the case of whether a person is having sex, the government's only prohibitive role is to prevent coercion. If it's smart, it'll also give out condoms, educate etc.
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.