I feel a somewhat shy, but I’ve read one post seeing that it’s okay to disagree. I’m not exactly communist, but I’m not anti-China, support universal basic income, and that seems to be communist enough for the average Anglo-American, so I hope I should be okay asking about these very touchy subjects.
I would like to know what the answer is among marxists to the questions of
- “Is sexual marxism marxist?”
- “If not it always fascist?”
- “Is anyone here in favor of it?”
- “And if so, where would you draw the line?”
While also boring everyone with my own view.
My short answer, not a marxist myself, though on the left, I don’t see why sexual marxism should be avoided. I see it as no different from let’s say, housing marxism. So I’m in favor of it and I draw the line at any solution that includes force, coercion or manipulation as I find such solutions inhumane, creating conflict and drama and especially completely unnecessary when the problem comes down to a lack of non-elderly women and the solution to me seems very simple.
The solution?
Just add more women. And since it shouldn’t matter if they’re artificial, subsidize sex robots and keep them legal. Problem solved.
As for my long answer…
I’ll start off with saying that being an anime fan and seeing that the word incel is defined as ‘person who has a difficult time finding a partner’, I feel like , and that communism is about ‘helping the downtrodden’, that the term ‘sexual marxism’ is born.
However, I feel like the incel community is mostly dominated by fascists and the fact that ‘the downtrodden’ in this market are men warps the entire premise in two ways.
- Progressives, feminists and ‘their allies’ on the left massively hating on sexual marxism and incels, which I will call sexual capitalists.
- Sexual fascists coming up with sexual “marxist” solutions.
Let me start with group #2. Looking at the incel wiki here are the sexual marxist potential policies:
- covert government program to societally brainwash people to make incels more attractive to women.
- Government funded prostitutes or escorts for incels
- Mass legal rape and universal forced monogamy
- Culturally encouraged volunteer corps of women to sex up incels
And the incel wiki has this to add:
"Some blackpillers have mixed feelings on sexual Marxism, as some seem to like the idea of legal mass rape, but everything else they tend to make fun of, or not dwell on much. "
Personally, I would consider #2 as the only policy in the list as truly sexual marxist, while the other three are sexual fascist as policies advocate manipulation, coercion and/or force.
#2 actually has been implemented in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2017 for the disabled and while I think that’s a good thing, I kind of feel it’s missing the full picture.
Onto group #1, I think the term ‘sexual capitalists’ suffices for the people who sympathize more with the haves than the have-nots.
Women who are raped in marriage is sad, but it’s sad in a similar fashion that small business owners having lost their shops or landlords going bankrupt because their tenants refuse to pay rent during eviction moratorium.
To me it’s sad but it also reminds me that I never owned a small business and I never had a marriage partner. They lose something I never had in the first place.
And what I noticed is that those who sympathize the most with them often seems to be related about the status of the cause.
If the perp is an ugly man, if the shop was burned down by poor protesters, think of the poor “This is horrible. We HAVE to DO something about this.”
If the perp is a hot woman, if the shop was burned down by a large corperation, “Oh, that’s bad. What’s for dinner?”
It’s almost as if they hate competition coming from below, while supporting anyone that’s being punched down except when they themselves are the target.
I don’t apply to that line of thought and it gets worse when I start stating solutions that turn have-nots into haves, because I think that any form of scarcity, artificial or natural, is the most pressing issue in a society, and then it suddenly becomes a problem for them.
My line of thought is when I am confonted with a rigged game, I will try to fix the game. When someone tells me “Don’t bother with the rigs, just try improving yourself”, my reply will always be “What!? No!! This game is rigged! And if a game is rigged, it needs fixing! That’s a first priority. Always.”
And what annoy me the most about this, is which group is now the largest addressing the issue and which group is the largest defending it.
So here’s my point of view.
For starters, sex, unlike most products is a two-way market. One could argue that any market is a two-way-exchange as one gets money and the other one a service or a good, but while a prostitute that offers sex, gets to have sex, a plumber does not get his sink fixed for fixing someone else’s sink.
On top of that, a prostitute won’t be as keen as a plumber of ‘doing the job herself’.
Next to it being a two-way market, it’s also an intimate service. Imagine potential policy #3, but then for plumbers. They’d be obligated by one designated costumer to repair their sinks at any time and have their sink ‘fixed’ at the same time, even when they don’t want their sink ‘fixed’. That is exploitation. Now if plumbing was an intimate service on top of that, it’s exploitation on an intimate level, making the policy even more inhumane.
So sex, or more encompassing, a relationship, is a two-way market intimacy market which of course has demand and supply.
From what I’ve experienced in life the demand of heterosexual men for women is slightly above 1, while that of women slightly below.
The birth ratio however is approximately 21 men to 20 women and while in the past this quickly dropped due to high infant mortality hitting more boys than girls, this no longer is the case for Europe, North America and Australia since the mid 20th century.
Thus the sex ration stays around 21 to 20 all the way up to the beginning of old age.
And as birth rates are dropping, the previously in history softening solution of a two-year-gap selection, where women can and will choose higher status men by age with an average of two-year older men only exacerbates the problem.
With sex being a two-way intimate market, sexual marxism in my view would have to need a solution that isn’t invasive in anyone’s life.
And so my solutions are ensuring that there enough women, which can be achieved in the near future through the production of sex robots and further into the future by adding girls via ecto-genesis. So here is my list of potential policies:
- Subsidize sex robots until one sees online dating no longer being (un)favorable for one gender.
- Make spying/collecting data via sex robots illegal.
- Subsidize ecto-genesis and orphanages for girls that close the 3-10% gender birth gap so future generations don’t have to deal with robots.
P.S. This post was quite long. If there’s any gaps in it due to my editing, please let me know.
incels are not oppressed