3 ms·

In what way should that solve the basic issue? Because women supposedly would be giving out more "sex favors", so their power would be lessened?

standardUser 5y ago
The picture I was trying to paint is much more radical than that. There are emergent phenomenon that come from less judgement and more openness that I would argue can subvert the paradigm you're describing. But yeah, part of the idea is that if we remove the endless barriers we have embraced that deny us sex and intimacy, we will all have access to more sex and intimacy. We may also find that we want more and different kinds of sex and intimacy, which may in many cases lead to a reduced demand for straight sex.
- AmericanChopper 5y ago
  The radical-ness of this doesn’t stem from the moral implications, it stems from how reality-denying it is. Young people have discarded the taboo of sexual promiscuity for at least a few generations already. But you need more from relationships than just sex, which is why we have the concept of “settling down” eventually to have a long-term, committed partnership. Sexual compulsions are very influential, but people almost universally find relationships revolving primarily around sex to be completely unfulfilling (eventually).
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  The barriers exist because sex has a cost - the risk of pregnancy and disease.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Because women supposedly would be giving out more "sex favors" Yeah, supposedly in such a society people would no longer be discriminating when it comes to sexual partners. They will have sex with anyone and everyone. It's a fantasy. I've even seen feminists arguing this. "Feminism is good for men too, they get more sex!" Except the unattractive men are never invited to the party.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I find it kind of amusing because I tend to use sexual attraction as an example for when communism will fail - because it is unrealistic to assign everybody a mate of equal attractiveness. You can give everybody the same shitty house and roughly the same shitty job, but unless you clone people, they will not be equally attractive. Amusing, because the communists actually thought of it, and come up with this solution: that everybody should just be willingly give sex to everybody (or another variant, that everybody should just considered to be equally attractive). For example here in Germany there was the famous "Kommune 1" in the 60ies, and they had the mantra "Wer zweimal mit derselben pennt, gehört schon zum Establishment" - meaning if you have sex with the same woman twice, you are already the enemy. I don't think that is the "freeing of women" that its proponents claim it is. Quite the opposite, it is the ultimate "utilization" of women who lose the rights over their bodies.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Amusing concept, isn't it? Sex and reproduction as resources. Inevitably the issue of fair redistribution comes up. I saw articles talking about this posted on HN once: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.html https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.htm... https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/06/comparing-income-sex-redistribution.html https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/06/comparing-income-sex-... Capitalism doesn't escape this either. The notion that you'll find a good wife if you work hard and become successful is ingrained into men since early childhood. It's magical thinking, of course. No such guarantee exists.

standardUser 5y ago

The picture I was trying to paint is much more radical than that. There are emergent phenomenon that come from less judgement and more openness that I would argue can subvert the paradigm you're describing. But yeah, part of the idea is that if we remove the endless barriers we have embraced that deny us sex and intimacy, we will all have access to more sex and intimacy. We may also find that we want more and different kinds of sex and intimacy, which may in many cases lead to a reduced demand for straight sex.

AmericanChopper 5y ago
The radical-ness of this doesn’t stem from the moral implications, it stems from how reality-denying it is. Young people have discarded the taboo of sexual promiscuity for at least a few generations already. But you need more from relationships than just sex, which is why we have the concept of “settling down” eventually to have a long-term, committed partnership. Sexual compulsions are very influential, but people almost universally find relationships revolving primarily around sex to be completely unfulfilling (eventually).
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
The barriers exist because sex has a cost - the risk of pregnancy and disease.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Because women supposedly would be giving out more "sex favors" Yeah, supposedly in such a society people would no longer be discriminating when it comes to sexual partners. They will have sex with anyone and everyone. It's a fantasy. I've even seen feminists arguing this. "Feminism is good for men too, they get more sex!" Except the unattractive men are never invited to the party.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
I find it kind of amusing because I tend to use sexual attraction as an example for when communism will fail - because it is unrealistic to assign everybody a mate of equal attractiveness. You can give everybody the same shitty house and roughly the same shitty job, but unless you clone people, they will not be equally attractive. Amusing, because the communists actually thought of it, and come up with this solution: that everybody should just be willingly give sex to everybody (or another variant, that everybody should just considered to be equally attractive). For example here in Germany there was the famous "Kommune 1" in the 60ies, and they had the mantra "Wer zweimal mit derselben pennt, gehört schon zum Establishment" - meaning if you have sex with the same woman twice, you are already the enemy. I don't think that is the "freeing of women" that its proponents claim it is. Quite the opposite, it is the ultimate "utilization" of women who lose the rights over their bodies.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Amusing concept, isn't it? Sex and reproduction as resources. Inevitably the issue of fair redistribution comes up. I saw articles talking about this posted on HN once: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.html https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.htm... https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/06/comparing-income-sex-redistribution.html https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/06/comparing-income-sex-... Capitalism doesn't escape this either. The notion that you'll find a good wife if you work hard and become successful is ingrained into men since early childhood. It's magical thinking, of course. No such guarantee exists.