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.
I think you are analysing this from the wrong end, like starting a race from the finish line and running back to the starting line.
Why are people turning to online dating? Because we are increasingly alienated from our labour, and simply do not have the time or energy to meet new people. Not like we could anyway, we are also becoming more individualist (have been for a long time) and wary of others. Workers take the car by themselves to go to their individual cubicle to work on a computer with no human interaction for hours on end, then take the car back home (individually of course) to spend some time with the very few people they actually trust – their nuclear family. And for those who are single, how would they meet someone? With what money? They work just to pay their bills already.
As such you are taking the present conditions and applying them to a time where they will be different, because everything will be different. You may be interested in the study (and later book, iirc) that showed women had better sex in the DDR (East Germany).
Why are men buying the services of sex workers? Because they want to feel some intimacy. It’s an act that has more to it than simply getting sexual gratification. Why are they lacking intimacy? Because of the conditions mentioned a few paragraphs above. Likewise a sex bot, if such a thing was possible, would be even more alienating because not only would it reduce sex to its simple mechanical act much like a sex worker, it would also take away the human component of this interaction.
In a society where workers are not alienated from their labour and have leisure time, they will engage in more meaningful social interactions. Sex will not fix all of one’s problems, it’s a tiny part of what makes a human complete. I know several people, both men and women, who have fulfilling lives (a luxury these days) and thus have no desire at all to find a significant other. They have a strong friend network, they are able to engage in their hobbies, and they otherwise have safe and good lives.
I also think incelism goes deeper than simply being resentful for not having sex. It’s a reaction of the patriarchy against a threat. Incels have a very glaring contradiction; they claim they can’t get sex yet rant about women having sexual partners. So, which is it? It’s also once again putting the problems of men on the back of women, by explicitly stating it’s women’s fault these men can’t get sex. Yet they don’t leave their very hostile vacuum chamber where not only you are encouraged to put others down, you are expected to put yourself down as well. This is toxic masculinity and somehow it’s the fault of women. Since incelism is not really about sex, accomodating them to give them sex will not fix their mindset. They’ll still be reactionaries.
Wonderful post.
Why are people turning to online dating? Because we are increasingly alienated from our labour, and simply do not have the time or energy to meet new people.
I think it’s just because it’s easier and quicker, regardless of us being alienated from our labour and time constraints.
You know that the people you are looking at are all single, so there’s no room for errors that the person is taken.Likewise a sex bot, if such a thing was possible,
It’s possible. They’re already here. Very expensive and a of extremely low quality, but they exist already nonetheless. If it’s anything like the sale of electric cars, I would say that by the end of the decade, enough will be sold to forever change the intimacy market.
would be even more alienating because not only would it reduce sex to its simple mechanical act much like a sex worker, it would also take away the human component of this interaction.
For the have-nots (incels), it’s a temporary step up before a solution is presented that adds more actual women.
In the mean time it eliminates human sex work, a profession that has always been seen as a vice or a victimhood,
though I wonder how much longer that opinion lasts.I also think incelism goes deeper than simply being resentful for not having sex. It’s a reaction of the patriarchy against a threat. Incels have a very glaring contradiction; they claim they can’t get sex yet rant about women having sexual partners. So, which is it?
That’s an easy one. Their claim is that there’s not a shortage of women, but that women choose the same partners, so only a handful of men have sexual partners. This is something they call ‘the ladder theory’. I never asked why we then don’t have legalized polygyny if that were the case, but I suppose they think that men do have harems, but it’s all in secret and/or they have lots of cheating wives. And the women are all naive thinking that they’re the only girlfriend each time?
I was not satisfied with the ladder theory however, because I figured that all you need then is to figure out where the harems are and expose them. And if that were the case then someone before me would have done this before and solved the issue. No, the issue has to be something that is much much more difficult to solve. Something impossible to solve for the time period we live in.
And the ladder theory also did not address my biggest issue with women. I keep/kept seeing too few women on average and wondered what would happen if I were in an area where there’s a little bit more women, especially single women and then gauge how much attention that I would get, compared to normal.So I searched and I found a few of such mid to short-term oases and I was immediately confronted with a completely different atmosphere of interactions. A whole new world.
It was brief, but it was enough to know that my suspicions had to be correct and the ladder theory wrong.
To me, it confirmed my suspicions that we are living in a marriageably-aged-women-poor world, but without it being common knowledge and instead we have rationalizations from different ideologies.A few more anecdotes from such oases, including one from a woman who out of ideology, started an all-female no-male company and talked about what happened when a male client attended one of their meetings, further confirmed my suspicions, so it’s not just my experience.
It’s also once again putting the problems of men on the back of women, by explicitly stating it’s women’s fault these men can’t get sex.
I would agree with them if the f/m sex ratio in their area/country is at or above 1 and the issue would remain, but all I’ve noticed is that people say it’s not significant until it happens.
Yet they don’t leave their very hostile vacuum chamber where not only you are encouraged to put others down, you are expected to put yourself down as well. This is toxic masculinity and somehow it’s the fault of women. Since incelism is not really about sex, accomodating them to give them sex will not fix their mindset. They’ll still be reactionaries.
It’s about intimacy first, sex second I would say.
The biggest problem I have with incels really is that the leading ones are simply refuse to believe in a neutral society when it comes to the sexes and worse, irrationally do not consider it possible for such a thing to even exist.
It’s a viewpoint I find unsympathetic, unempathetic and close-minded.
Not to mention that the leading incel community seemed rife with Anglo-fascists.
So I’d say it’s more than just reactionaries, but I have the suspicions that has more to do with US/Canada/Australia/New Zealand for being like South Africa pre-1990s.
incels are not oppressed
