new

The Redistribution of Sex

One lesson to be drawn from recent Western history might be this: Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. All kinds of phenomena, starting as far back as the Iraq War and the crisis of the euro but accelerating in the age of populism, have made more sense in the light of analysis by reactionaries and radicals than as portrayed in the organs of establishment opinion.

This is part of why there’s been so much recent agitation over universities and op-ed pages and other forums for debate. There’s a general understanding that the ideological mainstream isn’t adequate to the moment, but nobody can decide whether that means we need purges or pluralism, a spirit of curiosity and conversation or a furious war against whichever side you think is evil.

For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

Which brings me to the sex robots.

Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?

After all, he wrote, “one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.”

This argument was not well received by people closer to the mainstream than Professor Hanson, to put it mildly. A representative response from Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, “Is Robin Hanson the Creepiest Economist in America?”, cited the post along with some previous creepy forays to dismiss Hanson as a misogynist weirdo not that far removed from the franker misogyny of toxic online males.

But Hanson’s post made me immediately think of a recent essay in The London Review of Books by Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?” Srinivasan, an Oxford philosophy professor, covered similar ground (starting with an earlier “incel” killer) but expanded the argument well beyond the realm of male chauvinists to consider groups with whom The London Review’s left-leaning and feminist readers would have more natural sympathy — the overweight and disabled, minority groups treated as unattractive by the majority, trans women unable to find partners and other victims, in her narrative, of a society that still makes us prisoners of patriarchal and also racist-sexist-homophobic rules of sexual desire.

Srinivasan ultimately answered her title question in the negative: “There is no entitlement to sex, and everyone is entitled to want what they want.” But her negative answer was a qualified one. While “no one has a right to be desired,” at the same time “who is desired and who isn’t is a political question,” which left-wing and feminist politics might help society answer differently someday. This wouldn’t instantiate a formal right to sex, exactly, but if the new order worked as its revolutionary architects intended, sex would be more justly distributed than it is today.

A number of the critics I saw engaging with Srinivasan’s essay tended to respond the way a normal center-left writer like Weissmann engaged with Hanson’s thought experiment — by commenting on its weirdness or ideological extremity rather than engaging fully with its substance. But to me, reading Hanson and Srinivasan together offers a good case study in how intellectual eccentrics — like socialists and populists in politics — can surface issues and problems that lurk beneath the surface of more mainstream debates.

By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.

First, because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration.

Second, because in this new landscape, and amid other economic and technological transformations, the sexes seem to be struggling generally to relate to one another, with social and political chasms opening between them and not only marriage and family but also sexual activity itself in recent decline.

Third, because the culture’s dominant message about sex is still essentially Hefnerian, despite certain revisions attempted by feminists since the heyday of the Playboy philosophy — a message that frequency and variety in sexual experience is as close to a summum bonum as the human condition has to offer, that the greatest possible diversity in sexual desires and tastes and identities should be not only accepted but cultivated, and that virginity and celibacy are at best strange and at worst pitiable states. And this master narrative, inevitably, makes both the new inequalities and the decline of actual relationships that much more difficult to bear —

— which in turn encourages people, as ever under modernity, to place their hope for escape from the costs of one revolution in a further one yet to come, be it political, social or technological, which will supply if not the promised utopia at least some form of redress for the many people that progress has obviously left behind.

There is an alternative, conservative response, of course — namely, that our widespread isolation and unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy and chastity and permanence and the special respect owed to the celibate.

But this is not the natural response for a society like ours. Instead we tend to look for fixes that seem to build on previous revolutions, rather than reverse them.

In the case of sexual liberation and its discontents, that’s unlikely to mean the kind of thoroughgoingly utopian reimagining of sexual desire that writers like Srinivasan think we should aspire toward, or anything quite so formal as the pro-redistribution political lobby of Hanson’s thought experiment.

But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind, the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robots will increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.

Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that for now still seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable.

(Emphasis original)

We need a strict Patriarchy in order to put every single woman on a leash. They can not be allowed to have any sort of freedom outside of a man's influence because they can't handle it as we see in Western society.

Every modern western woman nowadays is no better than criminal scum.

When you don't coursely discipline and keep women under control, they go loose like wild beasts and spread their ass cheeks for every second Chad they encounter who then goes on to pump his load in their every hole. Governed by pure lust, as if they have no mind of their own they keep trying to satisfy these basic carnal desires through instant gratification.

There isn't a single shred of long term thinking in their primitive minds so when the time comes where they feel their biological clock is ticking, panic breaks out.

The sly filthy amoral foid then starts to look for a gullible weak man whom she can easily wrap around her finger. At that point, the disgusting used up cumrag who has devolved into a barbarian has lost all capacity for pair bonding. Don't even dream she's a type of person whom you can grow old with. No, she's long past that. Her primary incentive is to gain social points so she doesn't feel left out and also extracting resources from the stupid man.

While the poor husband is head over heels and mistakenly believes he's found a partner with whom he can build a relationship based on mutual understanding and Love, his wife is not sexually attracted to him in the slightest. Every 2 months when the man's been a good boy, he gets his dead starfish sex while she fantasises about her past sexploits with taller, more masculine and above all better looking men. They degraded her, treated her as nothing more than a meathole and she loved every second of it.

Children are conceived. A couple years later she files a divorce because "they grew apart" which really just means the foid has become bored of the bluepilled wimp, telling herself "I can do better than this". Loyalty is a totally foreign concept to woman. For a man with principles, being able to keep his word is akin to his lifeforce. Being scrupulous, consistent and reasonable is what makes a man feel actually human. Women lack all will towards this higher from of being and will strictly adopt whatever that won't ostracize them from society or their social environment. Another thing to note, women are not capable of experiencing cognitive dissonance because they only pay attention to how something feels for them in the present moment and that feeling justifies whether something is right or wrong. Whether it's immoral, deceptive or downright evil plays no part. Usually this is done through thorough applying self-deception and doublethink.

When she's gotten bored of the wimp, the woman turns into an incredibly demanding histrionic dramawhore. She's trying to rationalize everything into being the man's fault upon an impending divorce from her part.

The children then experience a breakdown of the family which brings with itself only detrimental consequences for their future in respect to their mental well-being, education and lifechoices. The profound effects of divorce is well documented in multiple academic studies with single-motherhood making things much much worse because single mothers are horrible and stupid parents.
__________________________________
Women are first of all innately morally deficient and alogical creatures who go loose like rabid bonobo's when not firmly curbed and put on their place by men.

They will degenerate everything that is intelligent and virtuous on their path of heedless destruction because they have no fucking idea what the fuck they're doing. They can not think matters through, they just can't. Woman's entire persona consists solely of the surface it reflects. You can not find anything beneath it, it's void. Her entire persona is an absorption from external influences she molds into what then consists as her core identity stemming from an extreme suggestibility. While women are mere empty individuals who can only act in accordance with the community, man is a higher form of life expressed as a differentiated individuality often referred to as the soul characterized by a strong will for greater truth and a deep connection with all that is. With the universe. It's for this reason that there has never been a single decent female philosopher nor will one ever emerge.

It also gives birth to originality and creativity which is characteristic to man. Woman can only reproduce it. Even among the poor and oppressed negro's of the USA, the blues, jazz, hip hop, rap all sprung out of young black men to draw an illustration. Let's not begin about science, classical music and ancient art. They speak for themselves. Women's achievements (always coming from the most masculine ones) bear no comparison.

Many men today are misled from what has been common knowledge since the dawn of humanity over all human societies ever surfaced. Emancipation of women isn't something enlightened or advanced from earlier patriarchal societies. It's pure stupidity and a product of capitalist policies in need for a larger wageslave force.

From a young age men are indoctrinated into a false idea of women. We are to believe women are capable of having agency, that they too are rational beings with whom we can have deep fulfilling conversations on worldly matters, that they are capable of unconditional love on the basis of who you are as a person instead of what you are, that they can breathe inspiration into your mind from insight on who you are, that women are all so different that there are certainly enough who fit these aforementioned criteria (not a single does). That a relationship where both parties stand on equal ground is possible. All these delusions are further exacerbated by media consumption with japanese animations in particular were the women are often a projection of the male producers their ideals.
__________________________________
A woman's natural inclination is submission and passivity.

She wants to be led, molded and derive her sense of identity of a man she considers to be in a dominant position. When a woman says she likes confidence, she means a man who's narcissism surpasses that of her for example. A woman can't respect a man who does not assert himself as the chief in a relationship. All of this comes easier when the male is taller because greater stature is directly imposing, hence their avid preference for this trait. This puts neatly in picture how primitive women actually are. These are her primal instincts she's incapable of sacrificing for the greater good of a society. If you let them go their own way, they will instinctively over the course of time aim primarily for apex men which will heavily skew the ratio of men and women with offspring. You see a similar instance with wild beasts such as gorilla's and even chimpanzees. In fact, this push can already be observed in "progressive" societies such as Norway where the gap between biological fathers and biological mothers has been steadily widening since female emancipation. Such a social order could never promote a civilised society as it would induce a perpetual competition between men barring them from cooperation.

A woman can not free herself from these impulses, only law and order pressed by men can guide an inherent amoral creature such as woman towards intelligent and virtuous behavior.

I thus propose extraordinary strict and harsh countermeasures for the revival of a full on Patriarchy. Beginning with a law that punishes any woman that engages in fornication through capital punishment. The capital punishment is preceded by stripping the prosecuted woman of her clothes on a public square where she is submitted to hundreds of flagellations. Once her body is covered in blood, salt is added for more pain. This form is public humiliation and inflicting of pain needs to act as a necessary deterrent for any woman who's daring to think of fornicating.

When this procedure has been completed, the woman is put out of her misery with public stoning. This helps with fostering a wider disgust and hatred towards criminals such as fornicators, so young children should be encouraged in participating to the stoning.

I'd like to emphasize once again that I'm advocating for lawful procedures enforced by the State.

We'd also need laws that would ban all women from education, holding public offices, choosing their own partners, participating in politics etc..

They should be banned from pretty much any institution where they can exercise their mindless opinions or choices that could bear an influence the societal structure. Be beautiful, take care of the family and shut up.