I'm not sure what is meant by the reference to "the (nonexistent) right to sex." Are they saying that there is no right to sex? If so, that's certainly true.
Or are they saying that there is currently no legally recognized "right to sex," but there should be? If so, I'd be very curious to understand how one has a "right to sex" without another person (or more) having a corresponding obligation to provide sex to that person. I guess once you concede that we have natural rights to healthcare, affordable housing, etc. (which others then have obligations to provide), it's not a large leap to a natural right to sex.
I’m guessing they are making the “incels” the focus of their argument. Those say that they have a right to sex. From there, these professors defeat that claim and think they have now proven their radical ideology. Very standard straw man tactic.
I'm not sure what is meant by the reference to "the (nonexistent) right to sex." Are they saying that there is no right to sex? If so, that's certainly true.
Or are they saying that there is currently no legally recognized "right to sex," but there should be? If so, I'd be very curious to understand how one has a "right to sex" without another person (or more) having a corresponding obligation to provide sex to that person. I guess once you concede that we have natural rights to healthcare, affordable housing, etc. (which others then have obligations to provide), it's not a large leap to a natural right to sex.
I’m guessing they are making the “incels” the focus of their argument. Those say that they have a right to sex. From there, these professors defeat that claim and think they have now proven their radical ideology. Very standard straw man tactic.
Ah, that makes sense in the incel context.
This is amazing - finally something from ASU with which I can agree: "Sex is not a sandwich."