Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want something that you have a right to, other people have to change. Not being discriminated is not a "nice to have", it's a human right. Sex with attractive women on the other hand is definitely not a human right. Is it just me who finds it ridiculous that this has to be spelled out?
Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. For many, it can even be racial, religious, etc. We as a society have determined that it is okay to discriminate based on personal tastes when it comes to sex. That's not obvious though. One could imagine a society where we deem it okay to discriminate on those things when providing employment, but not when having sex. As much as we want to believe…
> 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
> 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
> Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination.
It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to have any ethical implications.
Arguing that selecting sexual partners is unjust because it is "discrimination" in the (1) sense already assume it is "unjust". It assumes what is to be shown.
In other words. The reason discrimination (1) is considered unjust is not "because it is discrimination" but because people have made arguments for why treating people differently in certain situations is unjust.
What's the argument for why it's unjust that young men can't have sex with people against their preference?