Sex is just about as basic a human need as food and shelter. You don't need ample amount of research (which there is) on the almost necessity of it. And the negative physical and psychological affects because of the lack of it, especially it is over an extended period of time. This has been known all through the history of mankind.
But it is also increasingly merit based. Some people don't have the looks, or personality. Some are weird. Some are just nasty. But when it comes to right, the liberal order does not discriminate based on any of those. Here is Ross Douthat in a thoughtful and thought provoking piece (as is almost always the case with his writings)
"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."
The piece has so many interesting points. But to take the last one...when prostitution / sex work becomes legal (which is a matter of when only), it is almost inevitable that there would be demands that the society subsidize the access to it for those who are otherwise unable to afford it. Same goes for tech, the virtual sex, the robots and all. Considering how we as a society define rights, it is hard to argue against such a right on the face of it.
"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."
But it is also increasingly merit based. Some people don't have the looks, or personality. Some are weird. Some are just nasty. But when it comes to right, the liberal order does not discriminate based on any of those. Here is Ross Douthat in a thoughtful and thought provoking piece (as is almost always the case with his writings)
"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."
The piece has so many interesting points. But to take the last one...when prostitution / sex work becomes legal (which is a matter of when only), it is almost inevitable that there would be demands that the society subsidize the access to it for those who are otherwise unable to afford it. Same goes for tech, the virtual sex, the robots and all. Considering how we as a society define rights, it is hard to argue against such a right on the face of it.
"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."