Haha...I am a former liberal. And it was not any book that turned me away from that. But to see the actual lived reality and experience of it. I found there was a HUGE difference in that and what I had been reading and believing about the left and its views. People like Krugman and many many others for example
But no, I am not making clever arguments. Life is too complicated
Thank you for the thoughtful response. No I never argued for someone to have sex against their will to satisfy someone else. Neither did the opinion piece. Alas such is the nature of mob thinking and internet (same thing?) that people will hear or read without actually reading or hearing.
Two important points:
1. You said "It implies that one person has lost their right of choice at the expense of yours". That already happens in society all the time. There are so many drug addicts, each using up tens of thousands of dollars in various treatments, rehab centers etc - those dollars from people who have no choice in the matter, because govt takes it from them. The addicts continue their ways and each taking away more and more thousands of dollars...you can just imagine the whole amount. So the choice of people has been taken away. It is their hard earned money, through blood and tears, that they can't donate to their own charity of choice, or give to someone they know who is a deserving poor. Their choice has been taken away at the expense of someone else - just as you wrote above.
2. Yes, access to legal sex. Just like access to birth control etc. Because people need birth control otherwise the physical and financial burdens on them will be too huge. There is no doubt that in time there will be consensus about the NEED to have sex, because it will be argued that the benefits are immense to the society. So it is highly likely that this too would be another thing where people's choice would be taken away at the expense of others. Their money would be used to provide to others what is perceived as beneficial to society as a whole
But no, I am not making clever arguments.
Who knows if a sex robot could provide intimacy. In addition, that isn't necessarily what these people need. It depends on what people. A person might be getting intimacy in a sexless marriage, but no sex. Most people have a drive for both, and not always necessarily together.In a nutshell, the issue that these people have is not a lack of sex, it is a lack of intimacy, and a sex robot or doll will never provide that, and no person can ever be forced to provide it either.
Lol. You're the one that seems to be trying to make an argument for not having subsidised shelter, health care and food for people. And you're saying that other people dont understand human nature!Left is well intentioned I believe (unlike the current right). The biggest flaw and tragedy of the left is a complete misunderstanding of the actual human nature. They instead believe in the theoretical nature and logic.
And I'm a former snowman that found a magical hat.
Ah Zen again! I need to talk to you more about it. You had said you had started reading about it at one stage. Which book would you recommend?
But more practically, how would you go about suggesting someone about how to experience it? Any ...I don't know the right words..any particular thing you did if you were with a Zen teacher? Thanks
The biggest flaw and tragedy of the left is a complete misunderstanding of the actual human nature.
Legalize it.
Regulate it.
Tax it.
Test it.
But do NOT subsidize people who cannot afford to pay for their sex. They will just have to go without or do it the old fashioned way and find someone to take pity on them.
Maybe Christian Charities can be set up for the needy....
Here is Ross Douthat in a thoughtful and thought provoking piece (as is almost always the case with his writings)
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."
And I quote the article you linked: "Which brings me to the sex robots."
Wait, what? If there is any benefit to intimacy with a real person, then "sex robot" simply misses the mark. Otherwise, if there is no benefit, we can all adequately take care of ourselves free of charge. So which is it?
The entire premise of this thread is predicated on that sex is about a basic human need as food and shelter.
WTF?
I think he might mean without it the human race is doomed type of basic need.
Not at all, the world population is in no danger of becoming sustainable in our life times.
Instead, I think the reference is to one's own personal health and well being. Both mentally and physically.
Intimacy is, in many ways, a biological need. And in more layered ways than just sex.
The entire premise of this thread is predicated on that sex is about a basic human need as food and shelter.
WTF?
Nope. This is beyond your understanding. It is about what are the things that are considered rights and if there is a direction in which they are moving.
Sex is just about as basic a human need as food and shelter.
Nope. This is beyond your understanding. It is about what are the things that are considered rights and if there is a direction in which they are moving.