Much has already been written about Robin Hanson’s nonsensical reaction to the Incel murders, but I thought I would put in my own two cents regarding his comments, which could only have come from the brain of a MRA libertarian.

In case you missed it, Hanson suggested that there is more to the Incels than misogyny, and that this is an issue best addressed by sex redistribution, which he believes is exactly the same as income redistribution. He believes one way to redistribute sex is through legalizing prostitution.

Note, when men such as Hanson talk about sex redistribution, they are talking about sex redistribution to MEN. They believe this will ease the sexual frustration that leads some men to kill women. It is men’s desire around which the entire fabric of society must be re-ordered for fair distribution of sex.

Hanson sincerely believes that sex redistribution is the same as income redistribution, and he believes anyone who disagrees is a hypocrite. Well, they aren’t the same. In any way. Men do not need sex to survive, no matter how much they believe this is true, and income is indeed needed for survival as without income a person may literally starve or freeze to death. In order to try and explain how people are obsessed with income redistribution while refusing to acknowledge sex redistribution, Hanson, in a Q&A with slate.com, claims that this goes back to when humans were foragers and redistributed resources, but not sex. He then seems unable to explain why sex was not redistributed in these societies the same as resources. He just doesn’t know why.

Well, I have some theories. In many of these societies, women may have had high status and leadership roles, similar to the San societies that exist. Or they simply may not have been so obsessed with sex as a major aspect of men’s physical and existential survival. I believe that men like Hanson mistake our porn-saturated culture that revolves around men’s penises as natural. It’s not. Porn is part of a system that upholds male sexual privilege, which gives the illusion of sex as a male right that needs to be distributed fairly, regardless of the detriment to women and girls. Porn is part of a system that gives the illusion that everyone everywhere is having sex all the time, and that women are always available for men to fuck whenever and however they want. Which is the real reason why Incels feel oh so frustrated at their inability to be laid.

The truth is that it was literally impossible to saturate foraging cultures with sex in such a manner, and this includes foraging societies that may have beem dominated by men. Thus no need for sex redistribution.

And let’s be very clear again, this is all about MALE sexual frustration and sex redistribution for MEN, because that is where the “problem” is occuring. Women do not go out and start mowing men down with vehicles after being left for a younger woman. Women don’t shoot groups of men studying engineering after being told that they are not sexually desirable as they age. Nope, it is only men who lash out because of sexual “frustration.”

This is because women are not taught that they have a right and privilege to men’s bodies. They do not have an entire system of strip clubs, brothels, street prostitution, pornography, etc. built specifically to meet their sexual desires. That would be males, an entire class of people raised to believe they deserve access to an entire class of people called women – or their human rights are being violated, similar to the ways in which people with little to no income struggle to survive. Thus the birth of MRAs and Incels. Hanson seems either unable or unwilling to ask himself why women, who of course can also be sexually frustrated, do not form such hateful groups that end up advocating and at times enacting the murder of men. Or maybe he would counter with feminism…which would be ridiculous.

Which leads to Hanson’s absurdly sexist statement made a few years ago: that cuckoldry, i.e. a man unknowingly raising another man’s child, is worse than rape. That it is a “silent rape” of a man. What this statement really means is that the violation of the male sex right is worse than the violation of a woman’s body. He even ponders how certain agricultural communities believed this until relatively recently, and why that changed.

Well, that’s because these societies believed that women were the property of men, and their job was to bring men sexual pleasure and provide them with offspring, specifically sons, to continue their patrilineal line. When a man realizes he is raising someone else’s child, he realizes his right to use a woman to provide him descendants has been broken. His entire power in this world, based largely upon the idea of male sex right, has been threatened, and so the woman is worse than a rapist. In fact, often these women were punished with rape, and rape as a concept did not exist in marriage. Rape was in fact part of ensuring the purity of the male line by forcing the woman to submit to his pleasures and ensuring she remain under his sexual control to produce his offspring. Rape was a tool in these societies used to control women, and it is still used to control women. A cuckold is basically a man who has lost his sexual privilege, and because that is seen as a right in these societies, cuckoldry is seen as a crime. Unlike rape, which is seen in these societies Hanson speaks so highly of as a man’s right to ensure his sexual privilege and his progeny.

Some cultures dealt with this whole idea of cuckoldry by not really creating it in the first place. Matrilineal cultures trace family lineage through the WOMAN, ensuring everyone is related to everyone, and the sister’s brother is incredibly important in providing material and ceremonial needs for her children. Which makes sense, because  it is ensured they are related. This isn’t to say that men and women aren’t expected to be faithful, and that it isn’t embarrassing to a man if his wife cheats on him. What it means is that rape is worse than cuckoldry, because these cultures do not revolve around the idea of male sexual privilege, and women are often given a high amount of sexual freedom and the right to divorce (google the Tuareg for one such example). For foraging societies that are not clearly matrilineal but in which women are afforded very high status, such as the San, I also doubt this issue of cuckoldry exists because it is based upon the idea that men are the main breadwinners. In societies such as the San, women have access to and control certain resources, such as water, thus alleviating women’s dependence on men – and Hanson’s cuckoldry theory is based upon the dependence of women on men, and dependent women using men’s resources to raise other men’s children. If she is at least equally providing for the child, cuckoldry is less of a tragedy – and really less of a thing.

I would also like to point out that Hanson says nothing of men creating offsping with women who are not their wives (whether through rape or consensual sex), and the horrors of the economic burdens and stigmatization experienced by these unmarried women and their unacknowledged “bastard” children – probably because this upholds male sexual right, in which Hanson strongly believes, while cuckoldry undermines male sexual right – and thus is the real horror. Even today, men who refuse to pay child support tend to get away with it unless the mother takes time and energy out of her busy life to press charges – and even then it is iffy.

Such an analysis, of course, eludes male libertarians such as Hanson, as libertarianism is brutally individualistic, and there is nothing more individualistic than the male sexual privilege that lead Incels and PUAs to believe that they are entitled to and owed sex – and thus owed a woman’s body. Western society has even attempted to make this entitlement a concrete fact through science, believing men are conditioned to be turned on mostly visually – i.e. porn is necessary for men and not for women, which is why women don’t like porn as much (not because it is degrading), and so women should just deal with it. There is also the idea that men have a higher sexual drive through evolution so as to “sow their seeds” and ensure high reproductive fitness – once again, women must thus deal with male infidelity and men must be provided with women for sex, regardless of what women want, because it is a natural part of male sexuality.

Nevermind that most of human existence did not have access to the pictures, books, and movies necessary for porn (and no cave porn has yet been found), and nevermind that men’s reproductive fitness cannot outstrip that of women, thus making sowing oats an extraordinary waste of time and energy – which is contrary to the theory of evolution.

Hanson’s ideas of sex redistribution and cuckoldry are based purely on male sexual privilege as a concrete biological right, and on the idea that Western agricultural societies are the norm and standard of human culture throughout time. Neither of these assumptions is true, and both only serve to benefit men at the expense of women, ensuring the survival of the patriarchy. Men do not have a right to woman’s bodies for sex, and cheating is not the same as rape. Incels and PUAs and MRAs, along with  the ideology of cuckoldry as worse tham rape, are the result of the patriarchal creation of male sexual privilege, and nothing more.