Does everyone have a right to sex (serious replies only please)

[Paladin3]

You are asking a question that wasn’t asked. No one is talking about force. It is about whether access to sex will be subsidized monetarily. So many things are already govt subsidized

If we agree sex is as necessary as food and shelter, which I don't, then what happens if some clod is so unappealing that no woman wants to have sex with him even for money? What happens if I can only get hard by spanking or abusing a woman, but I'm willing to pay well for it?

I'm not big on the slippery slope argument, but I feel government providing or subsidizing sex for anyone under any conditions is wrong. I've got no objections to controlled and regulated prostitution so long as the rights and health of the sex workers are protected. Let the free market work things out. And I'll cry no tears for anyone still unable to get laid.

 

[Thebobo]

Oh look another ZAAP post where... hmm well damn. I pretty much agree with all that.

Yes it was refreshing.

 

[glenn1]

If we agree sex is as necessary as food and shelter, which I don't, then what happens if some clod is so unappealing that no woman wants to have sex with him even for money? What happens if I can only get hard by spanking or abusing a woman, but I'm willing to pay well for it?

I'm not big on the slippery slope argument, but I feel government providing or subsidizing sex for anyone under any conditions is wrong. I've got no objections to controlled and regulated prostitution so long as the rights and health of the sex workers are protected. Let the free market work things out. And I'll cry no tears for anyone still unable to get laid.

The left doesn’t make those kinds of distinctions for food and shelter. If you’re so unappealing no one will offer you a job (because you won’t take direction, or bother to show up to work, or are a racist to customers,etc) they’ll still be fine with giving you other people’s money.

 

[1prophet]

uh, there is no such thing as a non-consensual orgy. An orgy can only ever be consensual.

I think you are referring to a gang rape?

Pretty much everything can be consensual zinfamous.

Group sex is considered more consensual than orgies. Orgies are mostly non-consensual; peer pressure, etc.

Peer pressure, like jumping off the bridge or ransacking stores and looting because your peers did it?

Sorry but no, this Harvey Weinstein, 50 shades of gray, just a little pregnant mentality when it comes to sex has got to go, sex is either consensual or it isn't,

if you can say no and walk away then it is consensual, if you are forced, extorted, passed out drunk or drugged Bill Cosby/Roman Polanski style it is not consensual,

 

[jackstar7]

Gonna guess that the OP has no problems with the pro-life movement.

 

[zinfamous]

Peer pressure, like jumping off the bridge or ransacking stores and looting because your peers did it?

Sorry but no, this Harvey Weinstein, 50 shades of gray, just a little pregnant mentality when it comes to sex has got to go, sex is either consensual or it isn't,

if you can say no and walk away then it is consensual, if you are forced, extorted, passed out drunk or drugged Bill Cosby/Roman Polanski style it is not consensual,

seriously: what the fuck are you talking about? You're conflating specific, awful, obviously horrific cases with a a general term.

So, because Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, all orgies = rape? what the everloving fuck are you on about?

 

[Noah Abrams]

The left doesn’t make those kinds of distinctions for food and shelter. If you’re so unappealing no one will offer you a job (because you won’t take direction, or bother to show up to work, or are a racist to customers,etc) they’ll still be fine with giving you other people’s money.

And deprive people’s freedom to give their money to those they feel are deserving of help. Because govt takes it from them and gives to those which makes it politically profitable. Such is the nature of govt control

 

[Blackjack200]

And deprive people’s freedom to give their money to those they feel are deserving of help. Because govt takes it from them and gives to those which makes it politically profitable. Such is the nature of govt control

Yes, excellent point.

But I feel like we could provide both a "right to sex" and a jobs guarantee if everyone was as enthusiastic about working at the dick sucking factory as you are. Although I must admit, sometimes I think you take too much time off of swallowing massive hogs to post on these forums.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Yes, excellent point.

But I feel like we could provide both a "right to sex" and a jobs guarantee if everyone was as enthusiastic about working at the dick sucking factory as you are. Although I must admit, sometimes I think you take too much time off of swallowing massive hogs to post on these forums.

Very enlightening post. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

 

[Blackjack200]

Very enlightening post. Thank you for your valuable contribution.

Thank you for your service.

 

[darkswordsman17]

This is a complex issue and frankly not one that I think too many people on here are capable of discussing well. And its a big schism in America, so I don't expect this is going to be another aspect that splits people.

FYI, there actually in a way are some of this type of deal. There are sexual surrogates as part of therapy programs. Its all consensual, and happens in a controlled environment (and happens in stages, generally starts with light touching, and can eventually lead to sex but not always), to help people with sexual issues (often victims of sexual assault/abuse). That might've been mentioned in the article, as well as that one country where they pay for people with disabilities to go see prostitutes (which are legal and regulated).

I do think technology provides some interesting options for addressing sexual fulfillment. Robots and VR/AR especially. Would those of you so adamantly against subsidizing sex find that to be more acceptable?

With the recent law about online sex trafficking (that does a lot more than that), we're seeing a slide in the wrong direction. And it isn't just a Turmp or Republican thing either. Under Obama (not sure how aware or involved in it he was, but he almost certainly knew about it some), there was a crackdown on "immoral" jobs where sex workers (which includes a lot more than pornstars and people that actually offer sex) were being blacklisted from banks and other financial institutions. The government basically refused to even talk about it, they tried to spin it as though it was just the banks themselves doing it, but I think Vice and others found that it was basically threats from the government, where they said "do this or else we're going to start investigating you for all the other shady shit we know about" so the banks and others were falling in line; they cooled off on it once the press started looking into it a lot, they ended up giving some bullshit "we were going after people getting payments from nefarious people, and some people were caught up in that that weren't actually doing anything wrong" but a lot of it is still in place; which I can understand that there's probably a lot of dirty money in those situations, but often it wasn't known and that type of shit is happening elsewhere with no ramifications - popstars have been taking huge pay days to perform privately for people we outright consider terrorists or funding it and there's shit like that happening on even Twitch.

Oh, one last thing. InCels are garbage people, so they can continue to go fuck themselves. Their inability to get laid stems from their toxic beliefs and behaviors and until they recognize that and are willing to address that, they deserve nothing but skorn.

 

[Paratus]

The left doesn’t make those kinds of distinctions for food and shelter. If you’re so unappealing no one will offer you a job (because you won’t take direction, or bother to show up to work, or are a racist to customers,etc) they’ll still be fine with giving you other people’s money.

Ah yes. The freedom to starve death. Always the cornerstone of every good libertopian argument.

 

[brycejones]

Ah yes. The freedom to starve death. Always the cornerstone of every good libertopian argument.

All glenn1 asks is that the starving have the good taste to die in dark spaces so he doesn't have to see them.

 

[pmv]

The left doesn’t make those kinds of distinctions for food and shelter. If you’re so unappealing no one will offer you a job (because you won’t take direction, or bother to show up to work, or are a racist to customers,etc) they’ll still be fine with giving you other people’s money.

So you are saying that for the right, wealth is equivalent to bodily integrity? So for them, taxation is, apparently, equivalent to rape. That might be the perversion in their thinking - they get confused between things and people.

Furthermore, it seems they honestly think they created wealth in a vaccum, ex-nihilo, from nothing. So it belongs to them in some absolute way, direct from God (or something).

I think that error is more common in the US, which has a very short history and an even shorter memory, and where the dispossessed were in large part not white, so it's easier for (white) people to delude themselves that they are entirely self-created and thus 'own' 'their' wealth in some strange absolute sense that renders taxation invalid.

In countries with a longer history, it's rather more apparent that nothing comes from nothing and that the current distribution of wealth is partly a concequence of thousands of years of theft and war and approporiation of natural resources, and hence that it's slightly absurd to say 'OK, now I'm winning, now we will change the rules and make private property absolute and inviable, separate from soceity and history, oh, and don't ask how I came to own this land in the first place, right?'.

 

[darkswordsman17]

seriously: what the fuck are you talking about? You're conflating specific, awful, obviously horrific cases with a a general term.

So, because Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, all orgies = rape? what the everloving fuck are you on about?

I think he's looking at situations like cults, where people have been put into a mindset where they're more accepting (and some are indoctrinated from birth).

And its not unheard of for people to be imbibing and then end up in sexual situations that they don't entirely want but are not sober enough to really protest to at the time (with some of them knowing stuff like that was a possibility, some people participated in orgies and had to get drunk or high because otherwise they would not have done it but wanted to do it, and then regretted having done it later; so its not like they got high and then had it thrust upon them thus not being actually consensual). For instance, average guys would be like "orgy? that sounds awesome" and then realize, oh there's guys and they you know might kiss, fondle, or even full on fuck you" only they were incredibly naive, but when they're in just like a mass of people they can't exactly stop everything and at the time it might even feel good, and then they realize, oh, I'm not actually into that. Unfortunately there's a lot of guys that claim women are just saying that when they later claim they got raped. And guys can be "well she wasn't screaming "NO" and punching me so she must've been into it, how was I to know that her going dead fish was a signal, every woman I've been with has been like that!" And the thing is, some women were "dead fish", not because they didn't like sex, but because at the time they basically had grown up believing that women don't have orgasms or enjoy sex, so they're just supposed to lay there and let the guy have his fun. It wasn't until they got out of that shroud that they realize "oh, I can have fun too". But women's sexual liberation scares a lot of the diehard conservatives, so any woman enjoying herself is "under the spell" or a witch or some other bullshit.

There are gray areas. Hell, I know couples where one of them really wants to have a threesome so the other will do it even though they don't actually want to and end up so remorseful over it that it ruins their relationship. But then, there are people that are ok with that.

And that's the rub, love itself puts people into mindstates that they do things irrationally. And there's a lot of situations where that has led to some awful stuff. And look at some of the polygamist sects, where in public they do a big show of it being all consensual. Meanwhile he's starting to fuck the teenage daughters, and the women are fine as they think the teenagers can consent fine so its a "beautiful show of his love for them" or some of the other nonsense. And there's people that come out of cults going "at the time I thought it was beautiful and wanted it" who then later, free from the mental cloud they were in, are deeply regretful. And because society already has a strong negative reaction towards polygamy (or even just polyamory), they (the polygamists) view it all the same. When its like well people can be like "polygamy is weird, but ok it works for you and you're clearly consenting to it" but be horrified about the incest/underage part. They just see the general disdain and not that there could be aspects that are actually clearly a different level. If I'm not mistaken, there have actually been cases where underage people were mad when the situation was forcibly altered (meaning, the person sexually involved was jailed for instance). Hell the girl that Bowie took the virginity of when she was like 13 (and he was in his 20s) and then later Led Zeppelin full on kidnapped to keep people from finding out that one of them was fucking such a young girl so they could then legally marry her when she was old enough, looks back fondly on all of that. I think even the girl that Roman Polanski raped is like "people need to just get over it" and I believe might've even said she doesn't have ill will towards him any more. And when the one woman came out fairly recently about how the "butter scene" in Last Tango in Paris wasn't consensual, she was adamant that people not view it as rape.

Hell look at some of the cults where most the people are just having a groovy time, free love and all that, meanwhile the higher up are doing much more nefarious shit. Was it Children of God where they were grooming that young kid (Ricky?) to be the messiah, which included them full on fucking molesting him, and they had slowly started to seep out "teachings" about how including your children in sexuality was some great thing. Which a lot of people in the cult started going "WTF" but others were like "you know, that actually makes sense" because they're not in the right mindset.

And pimps full on use cult tactics on women. Its not just men either. Look up that female wrestler (that the WWE was naming their battle royal at Wrestlemania after, until people started coming out going "she was horrible, and force women wrestlers to have sex with promoters" and all kinds of other shit) or the woman from Smallville that got arrested recently over that fucked up cult in upstate New York.

That's why I see both ways. I see that yes, it can be all consensual and on the up and up. But there's a ton of situations where it might've even started out that way, but turned crazy.

 

[Noah Abrams]

I think that error is more common in the US, which has a very short history and an even shorter memory, and where the dispossessed were in large part not white, so it's easier for (white) people to delude themselves that they are entirely self-created and thus 'own' 'their' wealth in some strange absolute sense that renders taxation invalid.

'.

Taxation is not invalid. It is necessary for a society. The issue is, there is no end to what people would consider necessary, regardless of other factors. It is a fundamentally moral problem

Also it isn’t about United States. The concept of private property is ancient and has been recognized as such even in every religion. It is socialism which is a newer construct

Why should I (using in generic sense) be forced to give my property to a whole bunch of drug addicts who refuse to change their ways when my own decent good person niece is in genuine need? Why?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The issue is, there is no end to what people would consider necessary, regardless of other factors. It is a fundamentally moral problem

That is what the national dialog is about. Government is still one giant experiment. We are still iterating on ways to increase the general happiness and limit suffering. So, we talk about different ideas, and when one of them sounds convincing enough we try it out. Sometimes is works and it has a net positive in happiness or reduction in suffering, sometimes it appears to do one of those things but overall has a net negative to society. When it is negative we eventually come to that conclusion and declare it a failed experiment and remove it.

This is what is going on with the war on drugs right now. It sounded like a good idea to a bunch of people. America was convinced to give it a try. It seemed like it was working to reduce suffering, but had some problems. So we put more effort into it to try to reduce those problems. Ultimately we are coming pretty close to everyone agreeing that it if a failed experiment and that overall it is causing more harm that it solves. So, we are starting to experiment on ways to undo it with out causing even more harm.

It is socialism which is a newer construct

Not really. The term and some of the concepts on how to go about it is new but the idea is as old as at least ancient Rome. Socialism has been made into a boogyman by politicians and aristocrats, but it really is just the idea that if you want a stable society those at the top have to provide for the people at the bottom or they will eventually rise up. This should not be as controversial a concept as it has become.

Why should I (using in generic sense) be forced to give my property to a whole bunch of drug addicts who refuse to change their ways when my own decent good person niece is in genuine need? Why?

Because history has shown us time and time again that if you don't give them something to live for those drug addicts will eventually come and take your property and cut off your head in the process. It really is that simple.

 

[glenn1]

Because history has shown us time and time again that if you don't give them something to live for those drug addicts will eventually come and take your property and cut off your head in the process. It really is that simple.

So if Incels start resorting to more violence and threatening your property and head will you then start bowing to their needs? Sounds like the Incels just need to modify their approach to more threats and they'll start making more progress.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So if Incels start resorting to more violence and threatening your property and head will you then start bowing to their needs? Sounds like the Incels just need to modify their approach to more threats and they'll start making more progress.

The simple answer is yes. If there is enough of them and they are angry enough to disrupt society then society must make concessions to them or society will fail and we will have anarchy. I, and most other people, do not believe that there are enough of them, or that they are angry enough, to make any serious disruption to society. I think they are a very small but very vocal minority.
If we happen to be wrong on that case then that means that our society has failed on some very serious level and must figure out how and make a course correction.

That course correction could be by making some sort of change in our laws and government to appease them, like we did in the civil rights movement, or it could be that we use the powers of government to permanently remove them, as we did the Nazis.

 

[Noah Abrams]

The simple answer is yes. If there is enough of them and they are angry enough to disrupt society then society must make concessions to them or society will fail and we will have anarchy. I, and most other people, do not believe that there are enough of them, or that they are angry enough, to make any serious disruption to society.

Drug addicts are also a tiny minority, and they do not have the capacity to cause any serious disruption to the society. And yet, those and many others of their kind, continue to be showered with what is not theirs. Because it enriches the politicians and keeps them entrenched to gain power and wealth...

 

[SMOGZINN]

Drug addicts are also a tiny minority, and they do not have the capacity to cause any serious disruption to the society. And yet, those and many others of their kind, continue to be showered with what is not theirs. Because it enriches the politicians and keeps them entrenched to gain power and wealth...

Drug addicts are a minority, I'm not sure how tiny considering the size of the 'opioid crisis' we keep hearing about, but anyway it is the 'many others of their kind' that is important here. Any one group might be small, but when all lumped together they make up a significant part of our society. We are not just talking about drug addicts but a fairly large group of disenfranchised people.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Drug addicts are a minority, I'm not sure how tiny considering the size of the 'opioid crisis' we keep hearing about, but anyway it is the 'many others of their kind' that is important here. Any one group might be small, but when all lumped together they make up a significant part of our society. We are not just talking about drug addicts but a fairly large group of disenfranchised people.

Prescription drug addicts aren't entirely a minority.. I mean minority by strict definition I bet (<50% of population) but not like, .02% or whatever that random other drug addicts make up.

Prescription opioids are insidious, and will probably continue to be a problem for disenfranchised for a while to come.