3 mo

Where does socialism lead? Socializing the sexual marketplace and the redistribution of sex.

Turns out in fully exploring the logical conclusions of socialist belief systems, as a philosophy student does, when you follow the rabbit hole all the way down one makes a startling discovery -- actually a few discoveries.

The obvious one, though, is that socialism rejects competition as its most fundamental tennet and therefore is diametrically opposed to feminism's core belief systems.

How is this so?

I have seen polls suggesting that women culturally are more accepting of socialist politics and practices -- but actually I don't believe this.

In fact, I believe its the opposite, with women being the original and continued sustainers of competition, due to competitive mate selection and theories if sperm competition, and therefore conservative principles and, ultimately, capitalism as a framework for individuals to exist in relation to one another in a society.

Capitalism is fundamentally hierarchical. Ownership enforces a working class, which creates an existing poverty at all times -- by design. One trip to a supermarket makes this self-evident. All front brick and morter stores represent adults who will not recieve as much benefit as their owners. This is the framework of capitalism itself -- there is no opportunity beyond the structural roles in which people occupy. Eventually workers can move up to higher roles, but this does not eliminate the roles. And because we need retail stores to function as a society these roles are permanent, plentiful and are designed to keep more people down than up.

That's the nature of the beast.

Why do people work?

People work to have access to life necessities. Food, water, housing. A psychologist came up with a graph of categorizing basic human needs in order of relevance. Often named after him as Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Notice sex there at the bottom next to water
Notice sex there at the bottom next to water

Indeed, according to Maslow, secure access to sex must be had before one can pursue fruendship, have high morality, self-esteem and lack of predjuduce. (possible explanation for INCEL outbursts?!)

Here's the problem: true or false, this sort of theory (truth?) offends feminists and seemingly universally offends women all over, because it leads to an obvious conclusion that women seem to really hate.

House the homeless, feed the hungry, provide clean water to those without clean water but do not provide sex to the sexless.

Liberal women and their picket fence.

While many feminists identify with the left-wing politics they seem to have a line which they do not cross. That line is capitalism, preservation of inequity and a hatred of socialism.

Indeed, I'm not only talking about redistribution of wealth but redistribution of sex.

I was curious if I was the only one who made this realization, but I am not. Sn economist from George Mason University published an article highlighting this exact train of thought and used it as an argument as for why conservative libertarianism is the only ethical economic system (as a libertarian would).

An Op Ed piece picked up by the New York Times coverd his article and linked it to INCEL culture proposing it as a solution to the phenomena -- ultimately making the claim that it is no different than raising taxes on the rich. Ultimately, I agree. In principle it really is no different. If you go all in on one, you must also go all in on the other.

This has made women all over Op Ed publications react negatively with disgust and revoltedness. As can be seen in a piece written on VICE, The Washington Post and others. Anti-redistribution arguments range from a wide variety of claims but the most prominent are the following: 1) INCELs are actually just violent toxically masculine men and sex won't fix them they just use that as an excuse to be violent and are therefore too dangerous for sex workers, 2) sex is about personal boundries and privacy of consent and personal space therefore nobody has the right to it, and so redistribution is offensive, 3) INCELs are actually only celibate because of their belief systems -- in other words, their plight is a non-issue because all people want sex they're just being stupid. If they changed their attitude they'd see how easy it was, therefore no need for redistribution, 4) nobody has brought up female involuntary celibates in these pro-redistribution op-eds and so would they benefit as well? Those who made this argument, do not seem to think so.

So that's what has been written.

I'm not going to say anything about the argument or the counter arguments -- I simply believe that socialism and this idea of redistribution are inseperable and therefore if you believe in one you must believe in the other. And that means if you are anti-redistribution of sex you must be pro capitalism as well otherwise you are contradicting yourself.

Something to think about as we head into upcoming elections.

I'm honestly curious to hear what a person like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has to say about an idea like redistribution of sex, because she is the first truly socialist woman I think I have ever seen or heard about, ever, in modern political landscapes embracing the true Bernie Sanders platform (unlike all other femake politicians I can think of in the United States). Does this mean she would support tbis idea? I don't know.

I'd also wonder how people in the European Union feel about these ideas as they too seem to be largly pro-socialism.

As usual, would love to hear honest thoughts and viewpoints. ✌

Where does socialism lead? Socializing the sexual marketplace and the redistribution of sex.
Add Opinion

Join the discussion

Most Helpful Guys

  • The_Underground_Man

    This is actually a very old idea that has been around since at least the 1970s, it is common in some white nationalist dystopia novels. All extreme right ideas tend to be interrelated, even if the belief systems surrounding them are different. But what you are describing is essentially that in a sexually degenerate culture without marriage or a clearly defined pathway to sex, monopolization occurs. The majority of women are dominated by the minority of men and vice versa. It leaves the majority of men fighting an uphill battle to say in the least, evidenced by Inceldom. It is nothing more than a laissez faire approach to sexuality. I used to think that legal and affordable prostitute would resolve the issue, but I realize now that the majority of men do not have sex for pleasure but because of the validation that comes from being able to have sex with a woman. The only solution I can really think of honestly is a return to the old system where sex was restricted to marriage which in turn was only afforded to men who had proven themselves worthy to society. The male sex drive is the foundation of civilization. Men will not move mountains or slay dragons unless there exists the promise of sex at the end of the tunnel. Traditional marriage incentivizes productive male behavior through the promise of sex at the end of the tunnel. As for Alexandria Cortez, don't hold your breath. She, like most women, does not truly support Bernie's platform as anything more than a form of virtue signaling. Solipsism is the defining female characteristic. They support left wing causes insofar as they benefit them - hence the massive welfare state, subsidizing female mothers, excessive taxation upon men - but not in principle. They do not truly want to overthrow the capitalist system; they merely want to leech off of it. These strong feminists like to claim that they are strong and independent, but in reality, the only reason they were able to succeed is because they are living off of a civilization built and sustained by men.

    • That’s deep. Impressive thoughts man.

  • Kaazsz

    Redistribution of sex makes no sense. You can’t force women to have sex with fat pimply greasy men who only play video games and masturbate to furries.

    Redistribution of sex has been tried. It’s called socially enforced monogamy. Marriage. It’s also been enforced religiously. Which came first obviously.

    I think the fundamentals here are off.

    We don’t need to redistribute sexuality for the sake of all of incels and men who suffer from lack of sex.

    What I see happening, is that society has been teaching many of us since we were young that our sexuality is offensive and bad. That we must not flirt with women. We must respect women, and to never express the fact that we are sexual beings to women otherwise we are sex monsters who are incapable of controlling our inherently evil sexual lust for women.

    As such, we turn into “nice guys.” We purposefully and consciously hide our sexuality from women, to prove to women that we do have control over our sexuality. That we love and respect women and wish to show them they are safe around us. That we wouldn’t hurt women or rape them or sexually assault

    • I don’t think it would be half as bad as you make it sound.

      The reality is that sex is only perceived as gross and disgusting because of the fact that we are raised in a Puritan society. I actually think it’s the opposite — especially with men wearing condoms to prevent contact with semen.

      It’s an interesting dynamic.

Most Helpful Girl

  • purplepoppy

    Socialism doesn't reject competition it just asks its on a level playing field. I see the difference being socialism wants everyone paid a fair wage for a fair days work in relation to their skills whilst capitalism would prefer not to pay you in the first place.

    • Okay. That’s a good point. But let’s apply it to the redistribution of sex.

      If a retail worker is a person who doesn’t get a lot of sex (replace with money for example) then how does socialism help them then?

      Well traditionally socialism would raise the wages of the retail worker so applied to the sexual marketplace what happens?

      These are people who are not getting paid in the first place? But in sexual terms who does the paying? Right?

      How would that work?

      It seems strange for a woman to just come out of the woodwork to sit on him and then disappear out of obligation. Is that how it would work if we socialized sex?

      Or better question: as someone who sounds supportive of socialist policies and as a female how would you propose applying these sorts of principles to sex?

What Girls & Guys Said

  • MlleCake

    That's not Maslow's pyramid.

  • lightbulb27

    I don't agree with the sex before friends. I had friends before sex. Although the desire was there.

    I think women are somewhat "bi thinking" since they are so emotional, they swing emotionally. They know they survive and thrive in groups and with connection, but they require that exclusivity of the one man. Most women can't stand another woman... it's possessiveness for the success of their offspring. There are capitalistic women, probably depends upon their confidence, upbringing.

    Socialism feels good, especially when you can't "make it" on your own... like if you are injured, you need social support. That's the intent of those who think socialist... to take away the workers ability to "make it" on their own so they require social support. That's where US is heading, already there... it's erosion, a constant struggle of freedom from vs control and comfort. It's as simple as offering people benefits and things for free and the need of human to always have more and not loose. Capitalism works when we have huge losses and suffer and rebuild. Bail out the crooks with socialist fed reserve and paper over the problem... confiscates from the world, the workers their productivity... as does inflation.

    I know little about O. C., I'll watch more, but she grew up seeing poverty, apparently worked hard... and can't get close to the wealth in NYC. She sees the divide, so wants to confiscate and distribute. Very normal. Bible talks about a "Jubilee" I believe, which is a reset. Ideally if they wanted to become a socialist, they would stop giving social support to the wealthy corporations... that's the best place to start... cut that crap. Course, that would increase the costs to consumers. 2ndly, teach independence. But that goes against the necessity economically to sub divide the economy for creation of more jobs.

    It's all about human nature, how to manage it.

  • RussianNestingDoll

    Why would we want to be with incels whose negative attitudes will drive us crazy and then have their babies just to bring more incels into the world? It isn’t biologically healthy.

    • Question is: why do they exist if they’d pass on those genes?

      Somebody liked their fathers right?

      I mean. I’m not sure so understand how this situation even happened. And what if they had daughters? What would that be like?

    • Maybe creating Incels is a case of beer goggles or some kind of freak accident where two hot people get together and all their genes cancel each other out and create incels? I’m not sure that girl incels exist because women could pretty much get laid no matter what.

    • Beer goggle babies huh? How sad. Never thought of that.

      I was think more about how the girl would turn out. Would she have different preferences in men?

  • Well just from an academic standpoint you didn’t demonstrate that a woman places the same values on a sexual market place as she does in an economic market

    You wouldn’t even be able to demonstrate that a given person that supports socialism for the community supports it for himself ie Bernie Sanders the consummate capitalist that supports socialism only when applied at the macro level and assuming that he carries the benefit of his wealth forward

    • I actually think that economic systems reveal the psychology of the way people interact and relate to one another in that society.

      Fundamentally, one reason people are motivated to gain wealth in a capitalism is to increase their attractiveness. At a certain point excess wealth can no longer be spent — it becomes about the relations between other people in the same society and asserting power and control over those other people.

      Socialism changes that dynamic. I think economics have everything to do with underlying sexual politics and that is why I believe that it is actually women who force a competitive market into existence due to natural female preferences in sexual partners.

      I’m not sure what to think about Sanders and his own wealth. I think he’d pay high taxes on himself, but I wouldn’t know.

    • If women were sexually open, I think men would feel less need to compete with each other. And we’d transition slowly into a more bonobo like society where nobody is concerned about going without sexual expression.

      As such, tendencies would spill into every avenue of life. Other resources would be less fought over and things would become more communal and open.

      Ideas on monogamy, monotheistic religions and oppression of sexual expression, naming adultery as a crime, safeguarding of resources, borders and nationalism, private property and ownership — arguably — all revolve around preventing other men from stealing their sexual partner. It’s about threat mitigation due to heavy competition.

      If sex was redistributed, these issues would be less of an issue because nobody cares about promiscuity just as long as they are a part of the action. People only become bothered by it when they are excluded. And that’s what happens today.

      Arguably, this happens because of female preferences being inherently capitalistic and hierarchical. Which leads men to want to try and lock down women via political oppression and patriarchal religions.

    • Bernie’s paid tax rate was 13.5% on 1.2 M in income

      He also collected $25k in social security benefits of which 15% was untaxable

      And charitable contributions of 3%

      I’m simply pointing out that you have a long way to go to substantiate that argument

    • Show All
  • Pamina

    You study philosophy? Seriously? Damn, you suck at it if those are the conclusions you make.

    • Pamina

      But let me guess - you're an incel.

    • I don’t believe I am. I am fairly confident I can get laid at least once every three months with effort.

      I seem to have a general disconnection with lots of people from the get go that makes dating profoundly difficult for me in my area. I’m highly disagreeable and have low conscientiousness. I’m also highly neurotic and have low extraversion. But I have high openness to experience and I like to think I’m fairly smart.

      Unfortunately I believe this is the profile that women naturally don’t like very much. It leads to eccentricity, strong headedness, high independence, mood swings and poor time management. It’s also correlated with little to no leadership qualities and basically zero friends. It’s the profile of a weird, slightly smart loner: and that’s where I face difficulties in dating.

    • With that said, my temperament is easy going and laid back. I’m not aggressive, I’ll just disagree and make no attempt to agree if I actually disagree. I’m definitely a ‘type-B’ temperament.

      I can be witty and pretty funny in the moment. Enough to get people laughing, but I struggle to form actual bonds with other people.

    • Show All
  • Massageman

    Maslow's HON is FAR from universally accepted. And, depending upon the particular graphic you choose to use, many of the versions do not even include the supposed physiological "need" for sex. As far as redistribution of sex, yeah, that's a stupid concept that I'm sure AOC will get to one of these days- right after she explains how she's going to ban all fossil fuels and jets!

  • slatyb

    Legalise sex work so that money can be freely exchanged for sex. Problem solved.

    • A fair compromise would be to let women voluntarily step up to redistribute sex on their own. Some women can tolerate a lot of sex with temporary, sub-optimal partners while on the other end you have women who feel intense physical pain from penetration under most conditions. It would be barbaric to force the latter group to have sex in the name of any conceivable kind of 'equality.'

    • slatyb

      @DonCachondo women can already do this. For their trouble people call them ugly names.

    • In the US it's still illegal, and I'm against the stigma in either case!

  • Anpu23

    I have recently rethought my beliefs and views on socialism and socialist beliefs.

    The issue to me of socialism is, as pointed out by Ayn Rand, the only reward for hard work is more hard work. That the hardest working people have the most to lose and are the hardest hit in socialist practice.

    But there has been a recent paradigm shift, robotics and AI. We have an ipso facto slave class, one that currently only benefits the owners of the robotic force. Yet that could change, I have proposed the taxation of robotic labor to support the displaced. I believe that this could also solve the incel issue as sex robots are becoming more and more lifelike. Again this is a slave class in the traditional sense of the word, and could certainly be used to "serve" the unwilling and or unable. Just a thought.

  • Liam_Hayden

    Socialism is a leech that can only survive without force till capitalism dies. After that, it leads to poverty and totalitarianism.

  • SentientBrick

    Can u dont

  • MarketData

    If you're redistributing sex, pass some this way, okay?

  • DonCachondo

    Smh Socialism is about rectifying the power imbalance between the economic elite and the working class.

  • maximus99

    Most women Democrats are liberal, but most men Democrats are either socialist or getting some kickbacks.

  • No_Archons

    The amount of hatred from women to incels is really disturbing... like seriously, see a therapist

  • John_Doesnt

    Sweden seems to be doing okay with socialism.

  • up_64

    Nice my take

  • Anonymous

    is revoltedness a word?

    • Probably not, but you know what I mean.

    • Anonymous

      :) :)

    • I think it's supposed to just be "revolting."

  • Anonymous

    And yet all these spreadsheets and graphs never get anyone laid.

  • Anonymous

    There's a very simple solution to all of this. How about men and women learn to respect each other once again? It isn't difficult. It isn't crazy. Just treat people better than you have been, and be accountable.

    If a woman regrets having sex with a man, or something, and suddenly wants to blame him for some "me too" related type of thing that he didn't even do, that's a toxic woman and that's not behavior, or something that women should even be thinking about doing. The whole hook up culture thing that is going on, this sexual "liberation" is ruining people and ruining society and dating, and technology isn't helping. I truthful don't think men should be picking up women and doing the casual sex thing either. It's damaging to women, it's damaging to men, and it's damaging to society. It warps people's egos.

    We need to get back to the foundations of treating people the way they'd like to be treated. The golden rule. But it's like instead, everyone assumes the worst out of everyone. Men vs. women. Women vs. men. It's almost like our political climate right now. One side vs. the other. We NEED to stop that. Everyone is so self-serving, they've forgotten how to be good to others.

    So just BE GOOD to others! It starts with you, and the next person, and the next person. If everyone was just doing their part in all of this, our world will be so much better, but instead we try to politicize everything and everyone's personal needs, and all that does is divide people, and have we NOT seen that in the last decade? Have we not learned that when you start talking politics, and throwing your political beliefs around, it upsets people?

    Just do the right thing. Do the good MORAL thing. It sucks that you won't get your pee pee touched, I know, but find a woman, respect her, and build your connection with her. Don't just sleep with her and dump her. Does nobody any good at the end of the day. Same goes for women. When you give it all up on the first date, you start thinking that Macho Mike is the type of guy you can get, and that's very damaging as well. Those guys literally don't care.

    Oppositely, you should care that when a guy really shows that he cares for you, you should care enough to maybe allow yourself to explore what could be there between you and that particular man, because when a man cares, half the battle is already won. See if there's anything there for you. Give it time. This instant-gratification society is the cause for ALL of this.

  • Anonymous

    As long as women have the choice of sexual partners we will always choose the males we see as strongest.

    • Yeah. The idea, though, like taxes, is that this sort of thing will be more or less forced.

      That’s why I believe most women, deep down, are fiercely anti-socialism. Many just don’t realize it until they see the example of forced redistribution of something like sex.

      On the other hand, this idea of only choosing the strongest is inherently hierarchical. It necessitates a losing class. That’s very conservative and pro capitalistic. This is why I believe that women’s true nature is to be more conservative, generally, than men.

    • Anonymous

      Even the most socialist supporter will say fuck socialism when it fucks them. That's why most socialists are privledged spoiled upper middle class kids or "champagne socialists".

    • That’s not wrong. Not many people know that, so props. Usually upper middle class suburban families with McMansions and 2.5 kids.

    • Show All
  • Anonymous

    I'm not sure that you can think of money and and sex and conceptually the same thing as you do here. The reason is that money is inherently a commodity in the sense that it's completely and perfectly homogeneous. That is, each and every $20 bill is a perfect substitute for the next. Sex isn't like that AT ALL. Sex with Emily Ratajkowski is worth an absolute fortune, while sex with an old, fat, ugly chick is worth approximately zero. In other words it's heterogeneous. Incidentally, this is exactly WHY redistribution is done through money rather than through something else of value like cars or real estate.

  • Anonymous

    Damn it, nothing worse than being a pervert, but being a Socialist

    • I don’t know why but you strike me as a bald-eagle t-shirt wearing, bearded crew-top Christian boy that goes to bars in boots and Levi’s. 😂

    • Anonymous

      No man, I'm not a republican

    • ah okay. lol.

  • Anonymous

    Nice my take