Sex is not a thing, like gold or land or peanuts.

MarioWilson122 · 2026-07-05T16:09:05+00:00

I think the analogy falls apart because people aren't applying economics to sex itself they're applying it to the dating market. No one is claiming sex is literally a commodity like gold. The point is that dating involves supply, demand, competition, preferences, incentives, and bargaining, which are all concepts that exist whether the end result is an activity or a physical good.

Your ping-pong example also leaves out that access to partners is limited. If one small group of people receives a disproportionate amount of romantic and sexual interest, there are fewer opportunities left for everyone else. That doesn't mean anyone is entitled to another person's body. It just means people's choices create observable patterns in the dating market, just like choices create patterns in any other market.

The socialism comparison also isn't saying women should redistribute sex. The criticism is about consistency. If someone argues that inequality in wealth should be corrected because unequal outcomes are unfair, but then argues that unequal dating outcomes should simply be accepted because "people like what they like," people are going to question why one type of inequality deserves intervention while the other is treated as completely untouchable. Whether that criticism is persuasive is a separate question, but it's not based on the idea that sex is literally a resource.

So I think the post is arguing against a position most people aren't actually taking. The red pill isn't claiming sex is a commodity that should be redistributed. It's describing dating as a competitive market where preferences and incentives produce predictable outcomes. Those observations don't require treating sex itself as a tradable object.

AutoModerator · 2026-07-04T23:31:56+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.

Outrageous-Floor-424 · 2026-07-05T14:28:58+00:00

Categories are made up. You can perfectly well invent and apply categories in which sex and gold fit into different sets. But sets are malliable. If we define them differently, we must apply them differently; directly as a consequence of the fact that categories are imposed upon nature by concioussness.

Platonism, the concept that things belong to a category ontoclogically, is simply a terrible framework for understanding anything.

So let's make a new category: "Falamti". Falamti is defined as something desirable and scarce. Falamti then includes both sex and gold - they are in your words "the same thing". Because the categories are simply impositions of order, not the-thing-in-itself.

vk059 · 2026-07-05T00:17:24+00:00

Economics is the study of how humans allocate scarce resources. As animals and as living things, reproduction and the desire to pass down our DNA is baked into humans as our #2 priority after survival. Before the last century sex was not possible to separate from reproduction and even now men and women still largely act out their innate, biological reproductive strategies despite reproduction not needing to occur. While sex isn't a resource, babies are - it's not as if everyone who wants to reproduce can do it at no expense. A desire to pass down ones DNA is the reason why life continues to exist. From a biological perspective that is the point and everything else is an abstraction - the reason why we are so obsessed with hoarding resources is because we, on a deep fundamental level, see resources as energy and energy as reproduction. It's the explanation behind so much of human behavior whether we want to admit it or not.

Throughout history humans have created cultural mores to ensure societal stability. What would cause society to destabilize? Again, after self preservation, reproduction is our top desire so a society where only a some people are able to reproduce often leads to instability and the creation of cultural tools (religion, arranged marriages, expulsion of excess men etc) that ensure that most people can pass on the genes (and therefore have a stake in society's contained existiance).

These tools almost always benefit men because it is just not necessary for the vast majority of men to reproduce. Humans would continue to exist even if only 10% of men reproduced. This just isn't a great deal for the other 90%.

So yeah, sex isn't a resource. But there is a very good reason why men treat it as if it is a resource. It's because humans are still biologically programmed to treat sex as reproduction (even if it essentially isn't anymore in the west) and the result of reproduction (children that share your DNA) is the most important resource to humans after food, water, and shelter.

esdebah · 2026-07-05T12:24:37+00:00

Does anybody say 'he's giving me sex?' 'He took my sex?' Beyond that, the term 'having' here isn't materialistic. I can have food or fun with a person, but that is different than giving them food, and giving or taking fun doesn't traditionally make sense. You can say I took lunch at the cafe. You wouldn't say the cafe gave me lunch. You can say I took lunch with Rachel. It was good but a little gross.

So, I think it's useful to use language to investigate the way we categorize and organize concepts. And your distinction between things that reasonably be redistributed or not is good.

But I don't think that's what's going on with these guys. I think they're just assholes. They don't like socialism and they don't like not getting laid, and they realized socialist women won't fuck them. I refuse to believe anyone is actually confused with, "If you can sell sex acts then your belief in redistribution...yadda yadda."

If you believe in redistribution, and it is legal to pay someone to paint my dick with gold, then socialists are obligated to paint my dick gold. That's the argument they are making. It's supposed to be a joke.

Or they're making the argument that having sex is such a human necessity that it entitles them to another person's body. So again, assholes.

GhostofTomJoadRATM · 2026-07-05T19:30:19+00:00

Yeah, but have you seen these Thai women shooting ping pong balls out of their hoohas?

Livid-Log7463 · 2026-07-05T21:27:17+00:00

Defining it as an activity doesn’t make in any less integral, you could say the same with food, eating is an activity so if we just define it that way it ends up the same.
And any individual liking something compared to another has no impact either, for instance since someone can not want housing and would rather live in a box down by the river does that then make it of less importance as well?

Proudvow · 2026-07-05T23:05:35+00:00

For example, I've seen a lot of dudes on this sub make the argument that women who are socialists--who believe in some degree of wealth redistribution--are hypocrites for only wanting to do sex acts with hot guys.

I agree on how that would be silly, much like how criticizing a wealthy individual for being a socialist would be silly. Arguments for societal structure have nothing to do with one's personal life.

But that's often not the angle people are coming from when pointing out hypocrisy regarding these subjects.

Rather it's about how, regardless of their own sexual experiences or preferences (those are irrelevant), many people often respond to complaints about dating unfairness with bootstraps/natural selection type arguments. Despite bitching whenever said arguments are applied to other matters.

Banging whoever you want is fine, using dumb arguments that you yourself know are dumb in other contexts is not.

username_6916 · 2026-07-05T23:16:32+00:00

Consulting, engineering, tailoring, baking, baking, driving, barbering, nursing and services more broadly are not things either. Yet we trade for them and with them all the time in the broader economy. The 'tangible'/'intangible' bits are not what makes the difference here.

TopShelfSnipes · 2026-07-05T03:11:42+00:00

Sex when sold by a prostitute is a service.

There are all kinds of services as well - fake friendships, etc. However, just because the experience can be bought and sold for a price does not mean that it is only a service, however. Many people choose to do these things in life for free - I'd drive my buddy to the airport or help him move, but a taxi or moving company would charge him for that. Similarly, a woman will gladly have sex with her boyfriend...but a prostitute would charge him, if the boyfriend went to a prostitute.

We generally ban prostitution in many places because it often invites predatory behaviors and trafficking, and because it can be seen as coercive if someone is destitute enough...which is a secondary layer on top of the above that complicates it ethically for many people (especially since the "women's rights" crowd is often on the side of "sex work is great" in the modern paradigm).

However, sexual socialism and economic socialism are both inherently disgusting, freedom inhibiting ideologies that attempt to force people to engage in choices and behavior they don't want to in order to placate the jealous anger of those without. And nobody should be forced to do either: women shouldn't be forced to fuck ugly men just to placate incel rage, and the lower-middle / middle / upper middle class shouldn't be forced to funnel money by a confiscatory government to an array of politically connected nonprofits purporting to help the poor but ultimately not doing much of anything except everyone who touches the money from the government on down taking a cut of it.

These things can all be true at the same time.

Xexanoth · 2026-07-05T00:00:07+00:00

But ping-pong (and sex) isn't *like* food or money or housing--it's an activity, not a resource

Potential ping-pong partners in your area could be considered a limited resource. If many potential ping-pong partners in your area decide they don’t want to play ping-pong with you because you’re too short, then the set of potential ping-pong partners in your area willing to play ping-pong with you is a more-limited resource for you than for a taller ping-pong player.

LawfulnessSuper5091 · 2026-07-05T00:07:21+00:00

Somewhat true but as even acknowledged by the strongly feminist philosopher Amia Srinivasan, it's complicated. It is not in fact merely like ping pong.

BlessdRTheFreaks · 2026-07-04T23:35:36+00:00

You're really onto nothing here. This is a false analogy you've attempted to extend to something that has far deeper personal and social meaning, so you can't extend the aspects of one by virtue of that analogy, since those aspects are completely different and require different treatment.

AutoModerator · 2026-07-04T23:31:56+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.

Weary_Hawk9463 · 2026-07-05T16:06:26+00:00

Im so bad at ping pong that I need a government contract to play ping pong. 🐒

TheRedPillRipper · 2026-07-05T00:10:19+00:00

>it’s an activity, not a resource

If it can be monetised, it adopts the exact same properties as any other commodity or resource. Which makes it analogous to every other commodity or resource that can be traded.

It is that simple.

VTHokie2020 · 2026-07-05T03:42:03+00:00

Counterpoint:

Many athletes have to pay competitors to train against them.

I’m not sure if this is the case in ping-pong. But it is in combat sports. Top fighters typically pay their sparring partners.

You’re right in part that sex isn’t like a house. But it could be seen as a service in some contexts. Like a massage. “Happy ending” and all lol.

Jip_Jaap_Stam · 2026-07-05T11:04:58+00:00

Historically, sex has certainly been a resource. Men used to fight with other tribes to control this resource, as procreation is necessary for populations to succeed. Even when we became more civilised, access to women was treated like a privilege that was granted by birthright or earnt over time. This reality lasted for millennia, so why do you expect less than a century of women's lib to cancel that out? It will take hundreds of years for men en masse to adapt to the new status quo, especially when culturally backwards places like the Middle East and the USA are constantly seeking to undermine any progress made.

Society has become significantly more egalitarian in a short period of time, but there are limits to how quickly we can change. While it might be annoying to hear men talk about sex like a resource, you still have immeasurably more freedom than your ancestors. And trying to police the way men talk is only going to make them more hostile.

gtbreddit1 · 2026-07-05T01:01:54+00:00

Massive nothingburger post. Your distinction between wealth and sex is immaterial but we don't even need to analogize to money.

Socialist women certainly believe heathcare should be distributed among people equally, and healthcare is largely an act. Perhaps they don't believe doctors should be forced to practice healthcare, but they certainly believe they shouldn't be allowed to practice it if they're going to be discriminatory in who they practice it on based on race or gender or wealth, or on anything other than the needs of the patients. Yet do socialist women think they should be disallowed from having sex if they're going to be discriminatory in who they have it with? No.

Logos1789 · 2026-07-05T00:58:02+00:00

They are getting the opportunity to have sex.

RightVeterinarian379 · 2026-07-05T01:04:26+00:00

Guess, I can pay a person and he will play ping-pong with me, what's the point of your analogy?

threewholefists · 2026-07-05T10:46:21+00:00

"What does he get" he gets to play ping-pong. If he was trying to get people to play ping-pong it means he wanted to play ping-pong.

Title	Sex is not a thing, like gold or land or peanuts.
Author	Kaleidoscopetide
Upvotes	34
Comments	88
Date	July 4, 2026 11:31 PM UTC (2 weeks ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1unn781/sex_is_not_a_thing_like_gold_or_land_or_peanuts/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/sex-is-not-a-thing-like-gold-or-land-or-peanuts.1584276 https://theredarchive.com/post/1584276

Comments