I’m writing this post against my better judgment. Luckily, no one reads this blog, so it’s unlikely to generate any controversy.

Over the past few weeks, in the wake of violent attacks by self-proclaimed “incels” (chief among them Toronto van rampager Alek Minassian), several prominent Internet figures (who shall remain nameless) have floated the idea that giving them access to sex through “sex redistribution” could have prevented the tragedies. The idea was roundly (and justifiably) ridiculed, but you know what? Let’s take it seriously for a second. Let’s do a thought experiment and see where it leads us. (Spoiler alert: nowhere good.)

Alright, first we have to explain what sex redistribution is. Most normal people think of sex as something that two (or more) people produce together, but sure, let’s reconceptualize sex as something produced by one person (typically female) and given to another (typically male). Sex redistribution would entail giving some of a woman’s sex to a man who is not receiving enough sex. (I’m going to refer to the givers of sex as women and the receivers of sex as men for the sake of legibility, but I should note that people of all genders could conceivably give or receive sex.)

First, imagine that the giving of sex were voluntary but encouraged by the government by means of financial compensation. Being willing to give sex for a price would imply consent, assuming payment is received upon full receipt of sex, since consent can be withdrawn at any time. A woman can’t consent to give sex involuntarily; you can’t put a price on rape, because that would imply consent, which would make it not rape. So essentially, the government would be paying women to go have sex with men who aren’t receiving it. Congratulations, you just invented government-sponsored prostitution! Cool beans!

Now, consider the involuntary giving of sex (which may or may not be financially compensated). This isn’t like a tax or expropriation; those involve the government taking a chunk of something that has already been produced. In this case, the government would be forcing women to produce sex, not to give up something that already been produced. Forcing people to produce something… Hmm, what do we call that again? Oh yeah. Slavery. Congratulations, you just invented sex slavery! Cool beans!

If you haven’t caught on yet, the point of this exercise isn’t to defend the idea of “sex redistribution.” It should be clear that I think it’s pretty stupid (though I’m in favour of legal prostitution and wouldn’t be against the implementation of some sort of government-sponsored dating service). The point of this exercise is to show that if you’re a public figure with some clout, and you glibly put out poorly-thought-out ideas, then you can’t be surprised when people poke holes in them. Even taking the idea as seriously as I could, I arrived at ludicrous conclusions. It should not be this easy for a random, anonymous blogger to deconstruct a supposedly serious idea. But here we are. Like I said, nowhere good.

Oh yeah, I should probably write something about the toxic “incel” mindset and how nobody is entitled to sex, but that’s not really my area of expertise, so hash it out in the comments below if you wish. Suffice it to say, nobody owes you sex. Go watch some porn or something; there’s plenty of it on the Web.