You cannot make comparisons between sexual autonomy and freedom and taxation/monetary system/currency/resources. They are morally unbound and any attempt to compare them is sick

Gravel_Roads · 2025-06-25T16:19:50+00:00

You kinda helped me put to words why I think so many people recoil specifically at the WORD “incel”.

I don’t think most dudes who identify as such mean to, but to say your “celibacy” is involuntary kinda suggests that if you were allowed to, you’d be fucking people.

But when the barrier is “someone not wanting to have sex with you”, then you’re kinda saying “I’d have sex with women who don’t want to have sex with me, if I were allowed to.”

Again, I don’t think they’re meaning it that way. But when sex requires both people to want it, calling a lack of consent “involuntary celibacy” kinda implies the lack of consent “is against your will”. Like women are doing something TO you, by not letting you do what you want with them.

TopShelfSnipes · 2025-06-25T19:04:01+00:00

The only financial comparison between sex and relationships are economic transactions, particularly those of an irrational nature like houses or cars, artwork, or items of sentimental value. Things that are not mass produced or commodified, and don't need to be "sold" but can be.

Because a seller doesn't have to sell to someone they don't like, because a buyer doesn't have to meet a seller's asking price.

There is a freedom of choice present in those transactions that can be utilized to explain sex/relationship dynamics to people who don't understand the freedom of choice in relationships - whether due to conservative upbringing, not seeing women (or men) as people, not seeing people as individuals, believing in mass groupthink, or becoming excessively "pilled" to no longer understand the individuality of it.

IMO that's the only point those metaphors serve.

I DO think animal comparisons (what I derisively term "Animal Planet") are often baseless and weird. There may be some truth to them in individual actions (aka one peron's "lizard brain"), but they're usually discussed at societal level scale, which is...dumb.

Foyles_War · 2025-06-25T17:41:15+00:00

JFC, do people actually make that argument???

Findol272 · 2025-06-26T07:47:43+00:00

These posts are always dishonest. They always pretend that women don't want sex ever and that they men wanting sex with women means they dream of raping unconsenting women.

Incels don't want to rape women, they want someone to desire them. They wish society was such that they had a chance and that someone might realistically want to engage romantically and sexually with them. They hate societal norms that brands them as "undesirable" and that judges them harshly for being "undesirable".

Nobody is talking about setting up rape factories.

projecteddesperation · 2025-06-25T22:17:11+00:00

You’re arguing against two things here simultaneously. (1) can’t compare love and sex to anything economic or resource based and (2) sex isn’t a right and sexual socialism is amoral.

Love and sex can 100% be viewed through a framework of behavioral economics and doing so doesn’t imply you believe in government mandated sex UBI or something.

This is an extremely common, annoying, fallacious mechanism for shutting down any discussion of unrealistic standards by equating it to rape. Talking about modern dating trends or the effects of social media or options saturation or anything like that doesn’t make you rapist.

experienta · 2025-06-25T17:22:31+00:00

Who exactly are you arguing against? Who here thinks because they pay taxes they should be allowed to rape women? What.

BackgroundTime8298 · 2025-06-25T18:28:41+00:00

Every relationship has some sense of transaction to it. I really doubt you would ever stay with someone who never buys or does anything for you.

Sophiatab · 2025-06-25T18:19:06+00:00

You cannot say that because you pay tax women owe you sex. There is no moral argument to be made.

Last time, I checked the tax rates aren't based on gender. Plenty of women pay more taxes than the men that post on this board.

musicissoulfood · 2025-06-25T16:19:07+00:00

Love and sex is not a resource.

Go tell that to prostitutes or their non-professional colleagues the golddiggers, you are going to blow their minds....

But you cannot compare love and sex to anything economic or resource based.

Sure you can, you didn't even use any arguments that show you can't. Basically, you are just saying I don't think...

Trancetastic16 · 2025-06-25T17:11:41+00:00

Partly disagree, because while they’re not the same, dating and romantic relationships are still a part of and connected to the wider surrounding culture and economies.

For instance a Socialist Utopia with gender, social and cultural equity and a Universal Basic Income would naturally have a more positive effect on dating than the hyper-capitalist and hyper-individualist, racially segregated through economic gentrification (including immigrants being given separate neighborhoods) western model we live under instead.

Same with the fact that car/city-centric societies mean that the third spaces and social groups are primarily located within the city centres, which means lower income people, particularly lower income men, elderly, homeless, disabled, LGBT people and racial minorities, who live in lower-income suburbs further away from the cities literally have less access, time and money to date within the city centres. And Caucasian Feminist women who benefit from scholarships and DEI hiring are particularly benefiting from this model.

You can’t just handwave away how societal factors obviously effect people’s dating prospects and how pushing for social egalitarian movements, lobbying governments for government online dating sites and third spaces, and fighting wealth inequality would be important factors to pursue that would result in effective positive change - and will naturally result in a systemic change in the distribution of resources in a society’s economy.

3stun · 2025-06-25T17:01:41+00:00

Actually, you can. If you believe love and relationships are not transactional - you should stop asking and expecting something from your partner, and be with them no matter what they do and give you or don't.

If you are only with them as long as they meet your expectations - then BOOM your relationship is transactional, meaning "I'll give you this if you give me that".

Also, you're probably not willing to engage in relationship with just about anyone. You probably have some standards and want someone who has some value to them. Where value is involved - BOOM you're talking in economic language.

And transactional relationships can be viewed through the lens of economics, and compared to shopping and business.

drink_with_me_to_day · 2025-06-25T18:26:59+00:00

Pretty hard to debate appeals to emotion

In order to do so you literally have to force somebody to have sex with somebody they don't want to

This is just framing

The whole social contract is one of collective coersion, and considering attraction to be half social influence, society can actively build itself to enable the most pairings as possible

You can create a social contract that facilitates and incentivises marriage, without "[forcing] somebody to have sex with somebody they don't want to", just like governments already facilitates this or that financial endeavors via taxes and its inherent violence

SeemedGood · 2025-06-25T16:12:45+00:00

In order to redistribute money you have to force someone to surrender their excess productivity (which was usually produced with their bodies).

30SecondsOverTokyo_ · 2025-06-25T18:49:16+00:00

"It's not something you can share or divide or give multiple people without having your body physically violated in the worst way."

That is your opinion. Other people feel differently. If 2 consenting adults come to a living/life/employment/whatever arrangement that works for them, I am happy for them.

I feel certain (based upon your post) that given the ability to do so you would make illegal many adult consensual behaviors. In short you would be a totalitarian busybody. Why not let people navigate their lives as they see fit, using what they got to get what they need.

all_hail_michael_p · 2025-06-25T16:10:13+00:00

Sex and love cannot be redistributed.

I mean, they were for the first 99% of human history and still are in nations like Pakistan or Iraq. You can acknowledge it as being abhorrent but it wont go away regardless.

AutoModerator · 2025-06-25T16:05:22+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2025-06-25T16:05:22+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

MaxDureza · 2025-06-25T16:23:13+00:00

Isn’t this common sense what is being debated?? 🤣🤣 let’s get off Reddit guys

Embarrassed-Neat6745 · 2025-06-26T16:24:43+00:00

You cannot say that because you pay tax women owe you sex. There is no moral argument to be made.

Your IQ is showing. This is not the argument.

If you believe that taxation is morally acceptable, then you also believe that it is morally acceptable to coerce someone at gunpoint to do things for the benefit of another against their will.

As such, if you believe that taxation is morally acceptable, then the same argument can be used to justify coerced sex. Hell, if I had a choice between “safe sex I don’t want 6 times a year” and “giving up 30% of my working life to the government,” I’d take sex any day.

Women, if they were rational creatures, would understand this. But they’re not rational creatures. They operate off feelings and vibes, and are morally under-developed.

Intelligent-Insight · 2025-06-26T18:40:34+00:00

You're right, love and sex are not a resource and sex is not equivalent of tax. That's because you can run out of money/resource, but you can't run out of sex. If you gave some money/resource to someone, you now have less to give. Or if you divided/shared it with others. However, if you shared sex with others, you still have as much as before.

That's why, indeed, there's an excuse to not share money/resource, but not sharing sex/love is completely immoral. It is sick to compare them, you are right. It's unfair to people with resources/currency. They might not have enough to share/give, while that's rarely applicable to sex/love and not sharing those is just being 100% selfish.

voxpopuliberty · 2025-06-26T22:03:54+00:00

Give over all the power and responsibility to women (like the Mosuo) or men seize it back (patriarchy) are the only viable options

GrouchNslouch777 · 2025-07-02T08:59:56+00:00

What a stupid post.

Yes let's ignore that culture is shaped by social forces. Let's ignore that culture shapes who is desired and who is not. Let's pretend that phenotype exposure and framing has no effect on love and attraction. Let's also pretend that in the present campaigns have been launched that have altered the perception of attractiveness (females mostly, alternative types).

Yes when you pretend the world doesnt exist you can say all sorts of misinformed things. Golly gee.

Popeoath · 2025-07-18T01:41:32+00:00

Redistribution of wealth is backed by force too. You're just saying force is okay in some cases but not in others.

Sea-Roof-8135 · 2025-06-25T16:16:18+00:00

Does anyone think differently?

You can’t equate the necessity of money with that of sex. Money is a fundamental requirement that drives the functioning of society—so much so that governments provide support to those who lack it. It only becomes a privilege when amassed in excess.

Sex, on the other hand, is not a necessity but a privilege.

Sex is like buying a sports car. It’s nice but it’s not necessary to survive.

You mention love and sex.

Love, on the other hand, is something I would compare to the importance of money. While you may not physically die without it the way you might from a lack of food or shelter, love profoundly affects our well-being. Even something as simple as a hug can extend a person’s life. Studies have shown just how deadly loneliness can be.

SeemedGood · 2025-06-25T19:55:39+00:00

You have listed nothing that could legally be considered the basis for a contract (offered no specific goods/services for a specific remuneration). And BTW, highways are paid for by consumption taxes (taxes on gasoline), not income or capital gains taxes.

A generic link to the history of agriculture would also not suffice for the basis of a legal contract.

Again, conflating “society” with some unspecified generic cost also fails to meet the standard for a legal contract. Transactions within a free society are voluntarily bi-lateral and do not require coercion.

SeemedGood · 2025-06-25T22:34:44+00:00

I pay for all of those things privately either wholly or via usage fees already and there is no reason that users cannot opt to pay for them upon usage. If fact our society would be more efficient (and we would all be better off on aggregate) if all of those things you mentioned were funded solely via usage fees.

There is no sound reason that they must be funded via coercion.

abaxeron · 2025-06-25T17:04:18+00:00

You cannot make comparison between overtaxing men and benefitting women without anything in return, and sick handmaid fantasies. Because the men who make your lifestyle possible through undercompensated exploitation of their labor are (overwhelmingly) already married and raising children, which means they are forced to support women who hate them at the expense of women who don't. Single men can actually afford things like working part-time and being net leeches on the system. Married men can try, but with varying results.

You cannot say that because you pay tax women owe you sex. There is no moral argument to be made.

Well it's a good thing no-one who actually matters ever said such a thing, and even Jus Primae Noctis is an ahistorical myth on par with chastity belts.

WebNew9978 · 2025-06-25T16:32:13+00:00

The Middle East countries are certainly proving that notion wrong. All in the name of their religion. Yes not everybody is benefitting from such things but stuff like this was never something that everybody could never benefit from. Case in point me.

Also prostitution, creation of porn, onlyfans creators also prove that notion wrong as well

coping_man · 2025-06-25T18:03:24+00:00

I agree. The only moral way to acquire money is also to offer something the other person can refuse without threat in exchange for it, and to respect someone else's wishes if they refuse to give you whats theirs even if you're desperate for it.

ilikecats18851 · 2025-06-26T03:22:45+00:00

I can and I do and I will continue to do so. :D

Artistic_Speech_1965 · 2025-06-26T07:41:29+00:00

Personally I think it's wild that some men are entilted to a woman's body especially if they think paying taxes is a good reason. Sex can still be something sellable since everything can be made sellable in this economy

Logos1789 · 2025-06-25T16:57:50+00:00

I disagree. It’s perfectly fair for a man to choose to “lay flat” and make minimal contributions to society if the women he desires sex and relationships with don’t desire that with him.

Sex and relationships, while not resources in the traditional sense, are things that women, by virtue of their net choices regarding sex and relationships, essentially control men’s access to.

Yes, men need to consent too, but more men more readily consent more often than women.

Every time a woman rejects a man, he is denied sex and a relationship. He isn’t owed it, he isn’t entitled to it, but it’s normal for him to want it and it’s normal for him to feel negatively about not getting it.

Women are net consumers of tax revenue. This means that men work more often/at a greater rate of pay than women. So even though paying taxes doesn’t entitle a man to anything from women, it’s a true statement to say that the men who women reject literally pay money to support those women and the children they had with other men.

Edit: ”PPD is a neutral space, but the demographics of the sub shift constantly. In order to prevent one side from voting the other side away, the mods ask that users refrain from downvoting on PPD.”

millenium-kestrel · 2025-06-25T17:14:35+00:00

I agree but I believe it’s wrong for men AND women to try to shame each other into lowering their standards. OP very clearly thinks that it’s only wrong for men to do so but it’s fine for women to do so.

I would argue that is disingenuous.

millenium-kestrel · 2025-06-25T16:20:24+00:00

I agree but then I’m curious what you think about campaigns that try to do exactly what your post decries? Body positivity and such? What’s your take?

Title	You cannot make comparisons between sexual autonomy and freedom and taxation/monetary system/currency/resources. They are morally unbound and any attempt to compare them is sick
Author	Cjaylyle
Upvotes	56
Comments	509
Date	June 25, 2025 4:05 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1lk9omy/you_cannot_make_comparisons_between_sexual/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/you-cannot-make-comparisons-between-sexual.1555553 https://theredarchive.com/post/1555553

Comments