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

[amyklai]

We clearly need a state sponsored National Sex Service.

My reasoning is that such an institution could get those socially awkward nerds away from their pseudo libertarian Ayn Rand nonsense and pull them into the loving arms of benevolent sexual socialism. I predict at least 85% reduction in school shootings and a much more relaxed and satisfied society.

People wouldn't become bankers and ruin economies if they were guaranteed to get the blow without the greed and the ruin. No more trickle down economy, social injustice and violence. I'm absolutely positive that people would give a fsck if they saw that society as a whole shows that it gives a fsck.

We could achieve a lot, if we put our resources to it. And if our people didn't have all that accumulated sexual frustration turned into aggression, we wouldn't have to go to war, either. Which would free up more resources. Just imagine the mind-blowing amount of sexual satisfaction that the price of a single F-22 Raptor could buy. Howitzers to harlots, I say!

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm leaning towards him being some naive kid that recently read some jr high level Rand novel and thinks he's a genius.

His arguments sounds exactly like the ones my friends and I made in our sophomore year of collage as we sat around reading Rand and listening to Rush. We thought we knew so much about how the world worked and boggled at how so many people could be so wrong about everything! It was just so obvious!

All I’m saying that it is not at all inconceivable that in time sex would get implicitly defined as a right, for various vague reasons. And there would be a push for a public policy that gives tax payer funds to people to access sex workers or virtual sex.

It is already a right, SCOTUS decision Lawrence v. Texas ruled on that, it is just not now, nor will it ever be, an entitlement. That is the words you keep conflating. Not every right is an entitlement. I have the right to freedom of the press, but I still have to pay for the newspaper.

We clearly need a state sponsored National Sex Service.

My reasoning is that such an institution could get those socially awkward nerds away from their pseudo libertarian Ayn Rand nonsense and pull them into the loving arms of benevolent sexual socialism. I predict at least 85% reduction in school shootings and a much more relaxed and satisfied society.

I understand what you are saying, and agree in a lot of ways, but we don't need a federal program, what we need is to let go of the puritanical ideals of sex in our legal system, and accept that sex is a natural and good part of life. That there is nothing wrong with wanting sex or wanting to provide sex to others. If we could do that as a society this problem would go away on it's own.

The problem with prostitution is not that it is an inherently demeaning act, it is that society demeans those who choose to engage in it.

 

[Blackjack200]

Since conservatives like the idea of telling people what kind of food they can get on SNAP and WIC, how about we guarantee access to sex, but you don't get to choose what kind of sex?

Sort of like assistance programs that do the least amount possible because we don't want people to be disincented from working, we also don't want people to be disincented from socializing and building their own intimate relationships. Sure you can have sex, but it will be a huge hairy dude massaging your prostate. You want a woman? Well.. that you have to work for.

 

[momeNt]

There is no natural right to anything that involves the work/labor/conscription of others. Obviously what we as a society differs from natural rights.

That goes for healthcare, a child being raised and cared for by its parents, sex.

And who is to say that "sex" even if you pay for it, or have it paid for you with subsidy, is the fulfillment that they need? What if they need love? It is probably just as much a social need as it is a physical one.

There are winners and losers with everything, we are part of nature, nature is pretty fucked up.

 

[Noah Abrams]

I will reply to some of the serious posts later.

But to all those who have miserably failed to understand the point of that article, and have resorted to the usual juvenile name calling and insults, I am glad I was able to be a source for their mind egos to feel better for a while. Unfortunately, this ego satisfaction is only momentarily and the deep inner security which is the cause of it soon wants to feed its hunger again. I also want to apologize to the same people since this was way beyond their level. It is like trying to teach college level maths to someone who doesn't have basic understanding of algebra. So this was entirely my fault, I had made an erroneous assumption

 

[Triloby]

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.

Wouldn't such a sex robot require such powerful and advanced AI for it to even reciprocate to human intimacy? And if that were to happen, what's to stop that sex robot from breaking free of its original programming to try and become something greater than just some sex toy? Not that it matters anyway. Even that kind of hypothetical scenario would be decades (probably even longer than that) off from ever happening.

 

[glenn1]

Since conservatives like the idea of telling people what kind of food they can get on SNAP and WIC, how about we guarantee access to sex, but you don't get to choose what kind of sex?

Sort of like assistance programs that do the least amount possible because we don't want people to be disincented from working, we also don't want people to be disincented from socializing and building their own intimate relationships. Sure you can have sex, but it will be a huge hairy dude massaging your prostate. You want a woman? Well.. that you have to work for.

Yeah, because nothing says "we don't want to to disincentivize you from working" like giving them 99 weeks of unemployment.

 

[sdifox]

Yeah, because nothing says "we don't want to to disincentivize you from working" like giving them 99 weeks of unemployment.

... You know you have to pay into EI first before you can collect right?

 

[Blackjack200]

... You know you have to pay into EI first before you can collect right?

He seems a little wound up. Maybe a big sweaty dude exploring the depths of his rectum would mellow him out a bit. I'm starting to like the idea of this thread.

 

[Noah Abrams]

His arguments sounds exactly like the ones my friends and I made in our sophomore year of collage as we sat around reading Rand and listening to Rush. We thought we knew so much about how the world worked and boggled at how so many people could be so wrong about everything! It was just so obvious!

I was absolutely sure that the way to a better society is what the left advocates. That was ages ago. Since then this thing came in between...called life.

 

[Blackjack200]

I will reply to some of the serious posts later.

But to all those who have miserably failed to understand the point of that article, and have resorted to the usual juvenile name calling and insults, I am glad I was able to be a source for their mind egos to feel better for a while. Unfortunately, this ego satisfaction is only momentarily and the deep inner security which is the cause of it soon wants to feed its hunger again. I also want to apologize to the same people since this was way beyond their level. It is like trying to teach college level maths to someone who doesn't have basic understanding of algebra. So this was entirely my fault, I had made an erroneous assumption

You sound like someone that's going to laid any minute now.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I was absolutely sure that the way to a better society is what the left advocates. That was ages ago. Since then this thing came in between...called life.

Most people when they get some real life experience come to the conclusion that we are all way more connected than transactional models could ever hope to account for. That life is a super complex web of relationships that are hopelessly intertwined to the point that it is all but impossible to understand the long term effects of an action. Simple solutions are almost always wrong.

Your posts show a simplistic understanding of the world. That is why I said you remind me of myself 30 years ago.
You are suffering from a form of confirmation bias. You have seen more of the world now and think you have seen enough of it to know what is going on, but in truth you have only seen a small self-selected portion of it that is not very representative of the whole. This pretty much happens again and again through out life. Our view of the world keeps expanding, and if we are honest with ourselves we are forced to admit that our world view back then was too limited to understand how wrong our opinions were. At some point you have to come to the conclusion that we are still very probably wrong about a very many things.

We can not really ever understand any other person and have to simply accept what they tell us of their experience of the world. Empathy is the closest thing to knowledge of other people we are capable of.

 

[pmv]

Wouldn't such a sex robot require such powerful and advanced AI for it to even reciprocate to human intimacy? And if that were to happen, what's to stop that sex robot from breaking free of its original programming to try and become something greater than just some sex toy? Not that it matters anyway. Even that kind of hypothetical scenario would be decades (probably even longer than that) off from ever happening.

Seems inevitable that any such entity advanced enough to be capable of offering real intimacy, will pretty soon be demanding its civil rights, and doubtless forming political campaigns that split into radical terrorist factions and peaceful protest factions. Not to mention copping off with each other in preference to aesthetically-flawed and sexually-inexpert humans.

 

[Blackjack200]

Seems inevitable that any such entity advanced enough to be capable of offering real intimacy, will pretty soon be demanding its civil rights, and doubtless forming political campaigns that split into radical terrorist factions and peaceful protest factions. Not to mention copping off with each other in preference to aesthetically-flawed and sexually-inexpert humans.

Building sex robots that ultimately dump us to have sex with each other will be man's greatest triumph.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Seems inevitable that any such entity advanced enough to be capable of offering real intimacy, will pretty soon be demanding its civil rights, and doubtless forming political campaigns that split into radical terrorist factions and peaceful protest factions. Not to mention copping off with each other in preference to aesthetically-flawed and sexually-inexpert humans.

I don't know. People are really good at deluding themselves. I feel fairly sure that I could write a simple batch script that would convince most people that they were receiving intimacy if it had the right physical trappings. Just look at how people treat cats.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Building sex robots that ultimately dump us to have sex with each other will be man's greatest triumph.

Can you imagine how crazy the incel people will become when their computers start refusing them?

 

[Commodus]

I will reply to some of the serious posts later.

But to all those who have miserably failed to understand the point of that article, and have resorted to the usual juvenile name calling and insults, I am glad I was able to be a source for their mind egos to feel better for a while. Unfortunately, this ego satisfaction is only momentarily and the deep inner security which is the cause of it soon wants to feed its hunger again. I also want to apologize to the same people since this was way beyond their level. It is like trying to teach college level maths to someone who doesn't have basic understanding of algebra. So this was entirely my fault, I had made an erroneous assumption

Here's the problem: you assume it's that we're misunderstanding the point of the article, not that we've read it and see the premise as inherently flawed. You act as if you've figured out the nature of existence and you're just waiting for us rubes to catch up.

For all the article's song and dance, it's still asserting that sex for pleasure is somehow a human right (it's not), and tiptoes around the dehumanization involved with making people have government-mandated sex. Besides, is it really going to help the self-esteem of an incel if they realize the only way they'll get laid is through a government program? People on welfare frequently feel ashamed of their status, even though they're thankful to get help; I wouldn't expect that to be any different here.

 

[glenn1]

Here's the problem: you assume it's that we're misunderstanding the point of the article, not that we've read it and see the premise as inherently flawed. You act as if you've figured out the nature of existence and you're just waiting for us rubes to catch up.

For all the article's song and dance, it's still asserting that sex for pleasure is somehow a human right (it's not), and tiptoes around the dehumanization involved with making people have government-mandated sex. Besides, is it really going to help the self-esteem of an incel if they realize the only way they'll get laid is through a government program? People on welfare frequently feel ashamed of their status, even though they're thankful to get help; I wouldn't expect that to be any different here.

You honestly think welfare recipients are ashamed of their status? What will progressives do if someday we actually do achieve a post-scarcity world and you have billions sitting around with no purpose in life whatsoever and without the driver of hunger to spur them on to even get out of bed in the morning? Metropolitan cities are going to be a helluva big behavioral sink you're going to need to deal with. Hell, Jhhnn might even need to get a new hobby besides being jealous of the rich.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/

 

[Noah Abrams]

Here's the problem: you assume it's that we're misunderstanding the point of the article, not that we've read it and see the premise as inherently flawed. You act as if you've figured out the nature of existence and you're just waiting for us rubes to catch up.

For all the article's song and dance, it's still asserting that sex for pleasure is somehow a human right (it's not), and tiptoes around the dehumanization involved with making people have government-mandated sex. Besides, is it really going to help the self-esteem of an incel if they realize the only way they'll get laid is through a government program? People on welfare frequently feel ashamed of their status, even though they're thankful to get help; I wouldn't expect that to be any different here.

Oh man!! You are clearly incapable of reading and comprehension. The article is actually asserting the opposite of it.

 

[NostaSeronx]

If there is a right it must be adverse to instinct and impulse. Everyone(the people) has(have) the freedom to not have sex and not be forced into sex, etc.

The ideal is consensual honored marriages that take time to develop, and not non-consensual depraved orgies that take no time to develop.

 

[glenn1]

Oh man!! You are clearly incapable of reading and comprehension. The article is actually asserting the opposite of it.

Agreed. This article is another leading indicator that people will expect government to go further up Maslow's Hierarchy in meeting their needs. The "basic necessities of life" will no longer be sufficient in contradiction to what the progressives here say. They're already starting to advocate for more beyond that as their focus is shifting from "basic necessities" to "income inequality" which is a matter of relative status (a higher level in Maslow's Hierarchy). As technology improve more and more, this will become more and more the case that people will expect (and eventually demand) that government provide more and more of their needs up to and including self-actualization. It's very interesting they claim to be OK with stopping at the second level of the hierarchy and not proceeding further, we'll see if that lasts.

 

[zinfamous]

If there is a right it must be adverse to instinct and impulse. Everyone(the people) has(have) the freedom to not have sex and not be forced into sex, etc.

The ideal is consensual honored marriages that take time to develop, and not non-consensual depraved orgies that take no time to develop.

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?

 

[WHAMPOM]

OP makes sophomoric thread, complains about sophomoric replies. A right to have sex, is an idea that only a immature virgin male would dream up.

 

[NostaSeronx]

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.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh man!! You are clearly incapable of reading and comprehension. The article is actually asserting the opposite of it.

What is says is a bit more complicated than what Commodus described, but it doesn't say the opposite. What your author actually says is that over time, people will inevitably start to view access to sex as a right, even if it is never formally acknowledged as such. And he says this right will be addressed through a combination of government actions - such as legalizing prostitution - and technological advances in robotics and virtual reality.

I disagree with your author because I do not think any of these future developments will have anything to do with recognizing - be it explicitly or implicitly - someone's right to sex. Prostitution will be legalized because prostitution is safer when legal than when illegal, and there is just no point in continuing to prohibit it. Technological advances in robotics and VR will be made for profit, not out of some sense of moral obligation to those who would benefit from these advances.

I don't disagree that these things will occur. I just disagree about why. The notion that we will collectively recognize this "right" is unsupportable and has no basis in current reality.