[andai]

(Tried posting this 5 hours ago, but the article was briefly "[dead]".)

The article doesn't actually seem to touch on "the right to sex" (it mentions it once, as a position held by some incels). I thought that would be an interesting discussion, and especially how it relates to the "right to reproduce" (and the perception by some that it is impossible in the present economy).

The two are connected, of course, by biological necessity. If no woman wants a man, then that man is unable to reproduce. I am told that in the semi-near future, it will be possible for such men to reproduce by means of artificial wombs. (And equally so for women, who do not wish to undergo pregnancy, yet desire children.)

[vacuity]

I wonder how that would affect family structures. Children seem to need at least some kind of family structure that provides them with physical and emotional care, so it's worrying if this heralds less stability and greater neglect.

[andai]

Yeah. Arguably, only people well-adjusted enough to find a mate should be allowed to reproduce (i.e. you get the "approval" of at least one other human being).

[vacuity]

Heh, that's the bare minimum. From what I've read, people who have bad family experiences (abuse, narcissism, etc.) tend to mirror that or find partners who do, and there are plenty of outdated norms besides.