I just read Douthat’s opinion piece and am now confused. Is this some kind of neofascist idea? It was admittedly a bit of grind to get through as most of it didn’t make much sense to me, at least. The point seems to have been attributed to a libertarian economist about granting deprived young men to the right to have sex. I don’t think that has ever been denied. The only thing denied is other people without their consent. Obviously if these folks are part of some belief sect that denounces sex or severely restricts it that is their choice. So they have nothing to complain about.
It appears to me that they are actually complaining about the specific type of sex that they want to have and can’t. That’s tough. Masturbation is free. If they want specific types of sex, e.g. domination, then they have to make themselves available and work to be desirable.
Douthat, I thought, was mixing this together with sex robots. That is interesting although it wasn’t clear exactly what he was saying. We know any infringement on individual rights is denied. Sex workers may be ok as long as they are sex workers by choice and not desperation. That is an economic and moral issue. The rapid development of sex robots may be a good solution for people otherwise denied access to non masturbatory sex for whatever reason.
The redistribution thing is obviously some sort of ploy and makes no sense. Why do that? If sex robots are available and cheap enough under current standards then that is a personal choice, like a dildo, but then we have a bigger question. What about the rights of an artificially intelligent system? At what point is an AI/robotic entity a sentient entity with rights? We are right up against that now with autonomous vehicles. It would be much simpler to consider them entities with rights from the start.
In any case the problem of the incels is their problem and that needs to be addressed as a problem and certainly not as a mockery of a right.