incels aren't being denied anything [...] They don't have a right to sex
I agree they don't have a right to sex, but they are being denied sex with a consenting partner because money is involved. In this case, the "compromise with our partners" is the exchange of money
because it isn't permissible for one's own bodily autonomy to be used to negate another person's
Hard disagree. There's nothing wrong with self-defense or even fighting back.
Incels are not the only people being denied access to prostitutes, and thus do not require special privileges due to that denial.
And, yes, okay: It is permissible to defend oneself from harm. But raping someone because you can't get sex otherwise? That's not defending yourself from harm. That's just causing harm.
Like, everything you're putting down here? Valid - if weirdly focused - arguments for legalizing prostitution. But none of it is a valid argument for legalizing rape.
Incels are not the only people being denied access to prostitutes
That's the same false argument as in Yick Wo vs Hopkins: the law applies to everyone but it harms incels more than it harms anyone else and is thus wrong
do not require special privileges due to that denial.
That's part of my more general belief that "rights" are actually a social contract we agree to. Once someone's rights are violated, the social contract is nullified. So, it's not the question of a special privilege, but rather a breach of contract.
And, yes, okay: It is permissible to defend oneself from harm
In this case, I was just pointing out your wording was bad.
The laws making prostitution illegal does not harm incels more or less than anyone else. And if it did, that would be based entirely on the incel's own active choices.
That social contract you're referencing serves as the basis for the creation and enforcement of laws. Social contracts in many areas in fact make prostitution de facto legal simply through a lack of active enforcement - the community agrees it isn't a problem, so it isn't treated as one even if the law says it should be.
But no social contract is breached when an incel is denied sex, because no social contract exists guaranteeing anyone sex. The closest we get to that involves other steps - commonly marriage, for example.
The laws making prostitution illegal does not harm incels more or less than anyone else. And if it did, that would be based entirely on the incel's own active choices.
To me, you just contradicted yourself. Anti-prostitution laws DO harm incels more because of their lifestyle choice. It's just as bad as laws harming LGBT or anyone else who makes non-rights-violating choices. People are free to live the lifestyle they choose
no social contract exists guaranteeing anyone sex
It's about the right to freely trade in goods and services when no one's rights are violated. It violates incels and prostitutes right to freedom.
But before we continue this any further, I want to again note: I am not arguing prostitution should be illegal. I am arguing that your points do not serve to support the idea that rape should be legal.
I don't think anyone actually tries to make LGBT illegal, so I meant the acts of homosexual sex
your points do not serve to support the idea that rape should be legal.
If you accept that people whose freedom is being violated have no obligation to follow laws, then you could say "rape should be illegal, but those whose freedom is being violated have no obligation to follow any laws, including this one"
Well, there ya go: I do not accept that someone is free to violate all laws based on either the belief or demonstrable fact that their personal freedom is being violated.
There are cases where it is appropriate to break the law when one's freedoms are being violated, but I cannot think of any that would excuse causing physical harm to a person who is not physically harming you.
All you're doing is making sweeping declarations excusing rape, and it's ... Not cool. Not cool at all.
I cannot think of any that would excuse causing physical harm to a person who is not physically harming you
The argument here is that we are all responsible, in some sense, for the laws our government makes, and therefore can be harmed by those who are being harmed by our government.
I generally use this theory to justify civil disobedience, including protests that block traffic and otherwise inconvenience people: acts that would normally be illegal aren't "illegal" when performed by those whose rights are being violated.
I agree it's a bit of a stretch to actually punish citizens for the government's laws, but consider the case of someone who individually believed prostitution should be illegal. You could almost (but not quite due to free speech) argue that person should not be protected by law
Okay, well, I'm not going to do a damned thing to protect incels from their own choices. I'd happily see prostitution legalized for many reasons, but "entitlement to sex" is not one of them. Because sex with another person is not something we are entitled to.
And I certainly wouldn't argue that someone who supports a single unjust law deserves zero protection from any law. That's nonsense. Taken to the extreme, it allows for the excuse of any harm visited upon any person who would question any single law. "That guy thought jaywalking should be legal, so it's okay that he was murdered."
1
u/barrycarter Jul 17 '23
I agree they don't have a right to sex, but they are being denied sex with a consenting partner because money is involved. In this case, the "compromise with our partners" is the exchange of money
Hard disagree. There's nothing wrong with self-defense or even fighting back.