Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

ahalbert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 87 posts

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#71

Post by johnchristopher »

curtisblaine wrote: post #70
johnchristopher wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > The author doesn't say "not wanting to have sex with me is problematic", they say "not wanting to date someone based on their ethnicity is a political stance and it's problematic if it's the only factor in that decision". > No, that still isn't problematic. It's someone's right to choose who they have sex with. Only a rapist denies that. Fine, I'll get down to your level. You think it's not problematic for people…

> You think it's not problematic for people not to date black women because they are black. Only racists agree with that. But that's not true. You can be non-racist and non-ableist but still less sexually attracted by certain body types and/or racial features. And you can be racist and at the same time attracted by them.

Of course it's not true. It's an example of the twisted logic, manipulation and worst interpretation parent is using.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#72

Post by johnchristopher »

ctrlp wrote: post #68
vacuity wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh wait, of course she wants safe, legal sex work as well. Why is that a problem? As long as people aren't coerced/forced into it, where's the harm?

It would take a bit of time to explain why a society might not want to legalize, regulate, and tax vice. You might also want to do a deep dive into Libertarianism and consider whether it has ever made sense or could make sense for any society you might want to live in.

Could you point to some online references of what you are suggesting ? Otherwise you are also guilty of problematizing the subject without offering answers or theories :).

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#73

Post by msla »

johnchristopher wrote: post #67
msla wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The author doesn't say "not wanting to have sex with me is problematic", they say "not wanting to date someone based on their ethnicity is a political stance and it's problematic if it's the only factor in that decision". No, that still isn't problematic. It's someone's right to choose who they have sex with. Only a rapist denies that. > ELI5: it's problematic as a whole, for the community and society, when people…

> > The author doesn't say "not wanting to have sex with me is problematic", they say "not wanting to date someone based on their ethnicity is a political stance and it's problematic if it's the only factor in that decision". > No, that still isn't problematic. It's someone's right to choose who they have sex with. Only a rapist denies that. Fine, I'll get down to your level. You think it's not problematic for people…

> You think it's not problematic for people not to date black women because they are black. Only racists agree with that.

Not date. Have sex with. That's the whole crux. Engage with it.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#74

Post by vacuity »

smitty1e wrote: post #69
vacuity wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the issue and what needs to be done?

The issue is that families are the Lego blocks of society and "we" have systematically destroyed the idea of family on the altar of Progress. The remedy is to return to the traditional notion of family that was not the depraved wreckage you see before you.

Do extended families or same-sex couples count?

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#75

Post by andai »

vacuity wrote: post #61
andai wrote: post #53

(Tried posting this 5 hours ago, but the article was briefly "[dead]".) The article doesn't actually seem to touch on "the right to sex" (it mentions it once, as a position held by some incels). I thought that would be an interesting discussion, and especially how it relates to the "right to reproduce" (and the perception by some that it is impossible in the present economy). The two are connected, of course, by biol…

I wonder how that would affect family structures. Children seem to need at least some kind of family structure that provides them with physical and emotional care, so it's worrying if this heralds less stability and greater neglect.

Yeah. Arguably, only people well-adjusted enough to find a mate should be allowed to reproduce (i.e. you get the "approval" of at least one other human being).

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#76

Post by ctrlp »

johnchristopher wrote: post #72
ctrlp wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would take a bit of time to explain why a society might not want to legalize, regulate, and tax vice. You might also want to do a deep dive into Libertarianism and consider whether it has ever made sense or could make sense for any society you might want to live in.

Could you point to some online references of what you are suggesting ? Otherwise you are also guilty of problematizing the subject without offering answers or theories :).

I hope you're capable of doing a modicum of your own research. It wouldn't be hard to find a thread and pull on it.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#77

Post by vacuity »

andai wrote: post #75
vacuity wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how that would affect family structures. Children seem to need at least some kind of family structure that provides them with physical and emotional care, so it's worrying if this heralds less stability and greater neglect.

Yeah. Arguably, only people well-adjusted enough to find a mate should be allowed to reproduce (i.e. you get the "approval" of at least one other human being).

Heh, that's the bare minimum. From what I've read, people who have bad family experiences (abuse, narcissism, etc.) tend to mirror that or find partners who do, and there are plenty of outdated norms besides.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#78

Post by vacuity »

ctrlp wrote: post #68
vacuity wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh wait, of course she wants safe, legal sex work as well. Why is that a problem? As long as people aren't coerced/forced into it, where's the harm?

It would take a bit of time to explain why a society might not want to legalize, regulate, and tax vice. You might also want to do a deep dive into Libertarianism and consider whether it has ever made sense or could make sense for any society you might want to live in.

Apparently I'm not far off from some brand of libertarianism. I don't think the government should apply the law to regulate vices, and rather that such issues should (must, to be a true solution and not a band-aid) be resolved by society. Excessive consumption of alcohol hasn't been solved, unfortunately, but the Prohibition wasn't effective either. I would be giving too much credit to say that repealing Prohibition was a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation.

https://prostitution.procon.org/questions/should-prostitutio...

I don't doubt that the people providing cons (i.e. why prostitution should be illegal) mean well for sexually exploited people. However, I think the Pro 6 excerpt is quite comprehensive and reasonable:

  No person’s human or civil rights should be violated on the basis of their trade, occupation, work, calling or profession.

  No law has ever succeeded in stopping prostitution.

  ...

  Non-consenting adults and all children forced into sexual activity...deserve the full protection of the law and perpetrators deserve full punishment by the law.

  Workers in the sex industry deserve the same rights as workers in any other trade, including the right to legal protection from crimes such as sexual harassment, sexual abuse and rape…

  ...

  Unscrupulous people should be summarily dealt with by the law, regardless of which profession they corrupt.

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#79

Post by johnchristopher »

ctrlp wrote: post #76
johnchristopher wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you point to some online references of what you are suggesting ? Otherwise you are also guilty of problematizing the subject without offering answers or theories :).

I hope you're capable of doing a modicum of your own research. It wouldn't be hard to find a thread and pull on it.

Of course I could "do my own research" but that wouldn't give my any insights on your outlook.

Wtf, is this what passes for conversation this week-end on HN ? "Do your own research" as if it's an answer and a opinion ? What's next ? "Google a counter-argument" ?

Re: The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century

#80

Post by smitty1e »

vacuity wrote: post #74
smitty1e wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that families are the Lego blocks of society and "we" have systematically destroyed the idea of family on the altar of Progress. The remedy is to return to the traditional notion of family that was not the depraved wreckage you see before you.

Do extended families or same-sex couples count?

One can evaluate the tree based upon the fruit. I'm not here to boss anyone around.
Post reply on HN