The most emphatic part of his entire column was when he suggested that it was inevitable that sex workers would be expected to be a tool of sexual redistribution. And the fact that he equates sex workers and sex robots is a little fucked up to boot.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Whoever approves opinion articles at NYT NEEDS to be fired.
- Thread starter Angelus Errare
- Start date
The most emphatic part of his entire column was when he suggested that it was inevitable that sex workers would be expected to be a tool of sexual redistribution. And the fact that he equates sex workers and sex robots is a little fucked up to boot.
That's a consequence of a society that puts an excessive amount of importance on sex, and declares alternative methods of meeting one's sexual needs (porn, masturbation etc) to be for failures and losers
The people who tend to call people losers for masturbating or enjoying porn are usually conservative, yet this does not make them look at conservatism in that light. Rather, they seem to be embracing it. People are usually called losers when they act in a certain way about it that is, well, creepy and loserish. Like being an incel.
I mean... they DO... They are certainly a source for a lot of homegrown radicalization. It's not an easy solution either. What they need to be is isolated from the incel 'community' (good luck separating them from the internet), given therapy, and in most cases job training and lessons on personal hygiene.
Short of fixing the current incel problem (see above) we need to prevent more from becoming them... this means more work on education in middle and highschool.
You can't just make them go away unfortunately, and you can't ignore them either because they will insulate and isolate themselves in their communities.
That said, the article in OP is complete garbage full of non-answers at best, and justifications at worst.
For like the last fucking time, incels are not created by virgin shaming, or masturbation shaming, they are not victims of anything, they are a virulent community of misogynistic fucks who don't have sex because they feel they are entitled to not only sex but the perfect., hot, subservient woman. They aren't sad because they're horny, they're sad because they aren't worshiped and taken care of. That's why they hate "impure" women, "sluts", "sex workers"... and that's why Douhat's piece is so odious because he's actively bemoaning the same things, that women are too "slutty", that women are "impure" and that men can't just get a good little housewife like they used to in Trad Cath days. He's just dog whistling it while incels are upfront about it.
Last edited:
How could anyone justify this? The OP Ed is basically demanding women to bow down and bend over for incels or else. I'm sick of seeing op-eds trying to defend or rationalize evil.
Exactly. That's the metric that should be taken to solve the problem, not a call to regress to restrictive views on relationships or try and redistribute sex to everyone.
First of all we were discussing whether the newspaper exercise the correct discretion to publish this article, which I reply to the op that it is a good decision.
Second, I don't know why you bring up that "people are free to say it shouldn't publish trash articles". No where in my post I said that people shouldn't have freedom to share their opinion.
If you going to call the article trash, may be explain why. Please don't say it is because the author arguing for "sex redistribution" like many poster and the op here, it will only show that you didn't read the full article.
Because he equated sex bots and sex workers, because he suggested that a future where sex workers are expected to be a part of sex redistribution. These are shitty, gross, misogynist things to say.
They have problems, yes. None of which will be addressed with sex. None of which I can find empathy with. The stated problem that incels have, being denied sex, is not a genuine problem worth discussing or else I'd be a raging lunatic.
If the article was about, say, preventing young men from becoming entitled assholes, I'd feel it addressed the issue.
He's arguing for a type of redistribution though, when he argues for a return to Trad Cath mores
To be fair he's just predicting that not calling for it, he is actively against that, what he is for is frankly worse as he just wants everyone to go backwards back to traditional Catholic relationships.
.
If we want to help stop the culture creating incels, we need to allow men to express emotions other than violence, and to form deep, communicative bonds with people other than their significant other. This article does not reflect anything beyond selfish, one-dimensional needs.
Do you believe that the other possibility he posits would be more effective?
Yes, if we're making the mistake of drawing the line of necessity as being anything someone somewhere is willing to kill for then we have a big issue: We're redefining necessity in an unhealthy way so as to legitimize radical and dangerous behavior for things that others do without just fine. And as pointed out elsewhere, this isn't just about sex, it's demanding your ideal sex as if it's something you're inherently owed. Justifying murder from such a massive perversion of the concept of rights is being used to justify removing the rights of others. When you consider it just to remove the rights of others to extend your own and justify ownership of others, that should be considered extreme.
I mean that touches on one of the actual issues.... But he doesn't posit that, that's not what he wants. So he doesn't get credit for mentioning it.
I'm not aware of very many people who never had food or water and lived for very long.
Yeah bu-
oh...
I-
hrm...
Well I hope you have a good rest of your day?
I stopped reading NYTs awhile ago. They are a good source of information on things inside the US but their stance toward the Middle East and Iran and other eastern countries is sometimes almost propaganda like.
I remember when the deal with Iran went through they were doing puff pieces on life in Iran and humanising the people. As if they were animals before. Just an example
They do shit to appease whoever is in the whitehouse. Or what the people want to hear and read. I get why they do it to keep themselves relevant and not overly preachy but there has to be a balance.
I prefer New Yorker over almost all other us publications.
I remember when the deal with Iran went through they were doing puff pieces on life in Iran and humanising the people. As if they were animals before. Just an example
They do shit to appease whoever is in the whitehouse. Or what the people want to hear and read. I get why they do it to keep themselves relevant and not overly preachy but there has to be a balance.
I prefer New Yorker over almost all other us publications.
What makes the discretion "correct"? If there are correct and incorrect decisions, then what are the standards for those decisions? As for the article itself, I disagree with the argument that a governmental solution for sex using technology is inevitable simply because it would encounter the exact same kind of resistance that any other welfare program does. Robots, or VR consoles, or anything else will still cost money. Why would there not be political resistance to this? Not only that, but sex is not necessary to live, in contrast to things like food, shelter, and water. This would make it much easier to argue against the merits of a governmental sex program of some kind. For this reason, I don't think we can treat it as an inevitability.
As someone who thinks there are a lot of great journalist at the NYT, this shit is getting impossible to ignore, and at this point I don't see why it should be ignored. It's one thing to have few "conservative" OP-ed writers. It's another to write about women as if they are a piece of meat, even as a fucking "thought experiment". This shit is vile, and it boggles me that the NYT thinks having this stuff hosted under their name (no matter how much the actual content is the brain child of the respective authors) is a good idea. A disgrace, is what it is.
Are you talking about this paragraph:
Isn't some of the argument for legalizing sex worker is to provide services to the some population that have no other way to fulfill their sexual desire. Sex workers are free to choose accept or refuse client, and the chance is sex workers will provide services to both genders. In many country where sex work is legalized, there are also demands for male sex workers. As for equating sex bot and sex worker, I can see how this can be view as misogynistic, but for me it is like equating investment adviser with robo-adviser, they provide different needs, some time you just don't want to deal with humans.
I myself disagree with this, like a lot of people said already, for incels this is not about sex, it is about control.
The writer did mention there is an "alternative, conservative response" to go back to the older idea, but then he immediately said that it is not going to happen.
Sex is not necessary to live, we can all agree with that, but people also need dignity and respect; unfortunately our society still look down on virgin, and people will still judge you if you choose to stay single.
I do agree that there are no way we can pass a welfare bill for sexbot/VR in US. Even if there are no government subsidies, as number of loneliness increase, there will soon be a market for that population, and eventually there will be more investments and those technologies will become more affordable. Just look at how much people are making in patreon for VR sex games.
Last edited:
User Banned (Permanent): History of defending misogyny and sexism.
It reminds me of the visceral reaction some people had to any discussion of the role US foreign policy played as the motivating factor for terrorists after 9/11. The sexual revolution being a moral force for good is a foundational belief for people in a similar way as the role of the US in the world being a moral force for good is.
If I had to bet $100 on whether Douthat is right or wrong about "the logic of commerce and technology" being harnessed to address the unhappiness of incels, I would definitely bet on him being right. The logic of commerce and technology isn't exactly on a losing streak right now.
So he quotes an economist form GMU and a philosopher from Oxford university who question whether there is a right to sex and concludes that with the increase in legalization of sex work and the "coming soon" of sex robots it might not matter what the answer ultimately is. Seems like a week op ed but nothing too outrageous. Dude used to work at Atlantic Media i remember his byline there too.
Right, but that's what he wants, that's his ideal. That's what he wishes would happen. That he is aware enough to know that it won't doesn't excuse him for wanting it.
People do not argue for legalization of sex workers for the sake of sex distribution. The argument is to point out that criminalizing sex work makes it dangerous for sex workers, and decriminalizing it and regulating it makes it safer.
Did you just compare women fighting for the right to control their own bodies to US Imperialism....
:|
Neoliberals are responsible for incels too? God damn is there anything this ideology can't do.
"Listen women if you just stayed in your roles of doting housewives incels wouldn't have been radicalized 60 years later to want to murder you... just like how US Imperialism is a reason behind 9/11 women need to accept responsibility for how their fight for bodily autonomy is to blame for incels"
This is incredibly bizarre. The comparison actively suggests that you find US interference in other nations as being equivalent to the sexual rights of women and LGBT people (because let's face it, these are the core focuses of the sexual revolution).
Last time i checked women didn't bomb the villages and cities and homes of incels.... so maybe drawing a line between 9/11 discussions and incels is pretty fucking fucked up eh
But sure not being living fuck toys and doting housewives for misogynistic fucks is comparable to bombing villages, cities and countries....
But sure not being living fuck toys and doting housewives for misogynistic fucks is comparable to bombing villages, cities and countries....
Seriously. First the left are equivalent to the KKK, and now the sexual revolution is apparently equivalent to imperialism.
And I'm sick of idiots with shitty comprehension skills having a whinge because they've misunderstood what they read.
Counter argument: who gives a shit about these people.
Build your own sexbot if you want one so much. Put a wig on a Roomba or some shit.
Build your own sexbot if you want one so much. Put a wig on a Roomba or some shit.
Better marry the nice incel boy or he might be driven to kill you and you'll only have yourself and and the women's liberation movement to blame
And I'm sick of people who drop out of discussions when they realize that they're not equipped to participate.
Respond to my and excelsior's posts.
The comparison is solely about the reaction people have to arguments that implicate foundational beliefs in the context of explaining terrorism. I'm not addressing the merits of the foundational beliefs and have no intention of doing so. It is completely irrelevant to my observation.
No problem, these are extremely touchy subjects and it's hard to convey precise meaning about abstract concepts. That's the reason for the thread in the first place.
You think having sex invokes dignity and respect? Some proportion of society does look down on being a virgin. Some proportion looks down on vegetarians. Some proportion looks down on meat-eaters. I absolutely agree that the market for VR sex and sexbots will grow. Of course, this doesn't have much to do with the original point we were talking about which is why you thought it was a "correct" decision for the NYT to publish this.
Sorry, you didn't say anything worth a response and I can't reply to posts I don't see.
Except again discussing US Imperialism is a rational and worthwhile conversation.
Discussing women's lib as cause for incels is not.
They aren't comparable
It's a terrible analogy because one should be shut down from the get go and the other shouldn't.
They do not at all come from the same intellectual or emotional places.
Or more accurate, I gave you a valid answer to the question of what he proposed and you didn't have a good retort.
This ain't 4chan bub, it's really easy to spot when people are bailing on a debate for a lack of knowledge and preparation.