Claire Lehmann blocked me long ago on Twitter because she's such a fan of free speech, but every now and then somebody else on Twitter will share a screen cap of her latest idiocy. Lucky me.
Here is Claire Lehmann supporting a nutty academic, Robin Hanson who works at George Mason University, one of the major beneficiaries of the Koch brothers' largess.
Hanson argues on his blog that there should be "policies" to "redistribute" sex. Not only is it completely bonkers but it's funny when Libertarians, who are opposed to the redistribution of wealth are on-board with the redistribution of women.
In the post I mentioned cash compensation; more cash can make people more attractive and better able to afford legalized prostitution. Others have mentioned promoting monogamy and discouraging promiscuity. Surely there are dozens of other possibilities; sex choices are influenced by a great many factors and each such factor offers a possible lever for influencing sex inequality. Rape and slavery are far from the only possible levers!Many people are also under the impression that we redistribute income mainly because recipients would die without such redistribution. In rich nations this can account for only a tiny fraction of redistribution. Others say it is obvious that redistribution is only appropriate for commodities, and sex isn’t a commodity. But we take from the rich even when their wealth is in the form of far-from-commodity unique art works, buildings, etc.Also, it should be obvious that “sex” here refers to a complex package that is desired, which in individual cases may or may not be satisfied by sexbots or prostitutes. But whatever it is the package that people want, we can and should ask how we might get more of it to them.
Of course a dumbass like Claire Lehmann would support this creep. He literally wants to legislate making some people (hot women) love other people (incel men). What these freaks really want is a return to women being forced to marry and stay married out of economic desperation.
The Taliban's solution to women having too much social power and sexual agency was by making it illegal for women to work outside the home.
Steven Pinker's buddies, evolutionary psychologists Helene Cronin and Oliver Curry proposed a two-tier wage system to ensure men earned more money than women.
Robin Hanson first suggests legalizing prostitution and then admitting that even that isn't enough because sex "refers to a complex package" - presumably meaning not just sex but love or at least a domestic arrangement.
There's nothing that I could say that could top this commenter on Hanson's blog:
You have flown so far up your own ass that you have lost all contact with the planet Earth. Everyone has equal access to sex, and most people do have it, provided they are willing to consider a wide enough range of potential partners. If you troubled yourself to learn more about these groups, you’d know that their real complaint is not that they have no access to sex at all, but that they don’t get to have sex with Playboy models and other women they consider sufficiently hot. That cannot be framed as a “right” by anyone.
Furthermore, in the cloud cuckooland you hypothesize, what makes you think that there would be a sufficient number of sex workers to service these guys? Presumably it would be a world where poverty and lack of opportunity would not compel women into the profession? While there are definitely prostitutes who consider their work a vocation or just fulfilling, they are probably not the majority, and nothing guarantees they will be “hot” enough for the incel crowd. Your notion of some vague population of women who would for some reason be willing to have sex with men who feel such obvious contempt and resentment toward women, and who would do so without a significant amount of economic pressure being put on them is insane... well, really just inhuman, which seems to be the defining characteristic of this entire post.