Prof says 'wealth redistribution' key to 'sexual fulfillment'
Northeastern Illinois University philosophy professor Tyler Zimmer claims that “wealth redistribution” could boost “sexual fulfillment” in the U.S.
In an op-ed published by Slate last week, Zimmer argues that “a few conservative commentators” are starting to “warm up” to the idea of making a “full-throated case for [wealth] redistribution,” claiming they are motivated by “the rise of the violent ‘incel.’”
"Why not simply tax the rich, redistribute their wealth to everyone else, and eliminate many of the unsexy economic obstacles to sexual flourishing?"
According to Zimmer, “what’s pushed these conservatives to reconsider the merits of transferring goods and services from the ‘haves’ to the ‘have-nots’ is the rise of the violent ‘incel’—that is, the involuntarily celibate man who scorns women for ‘denying’ him the sexual gratification he feels is his right.”
As the incel movement gains traction, some entrepreneurs have attempted to tackle the problem by inventing and manufacturing sex dolls designed for men. Zimmer, however, believes that the incel movement is the result of a “sexual fulfillment” problem in America, which he believes could be easily solved by redistributing wealth among citizens.
“If we think that promoting human flourishing is a worthy political goal, it’s not crazy to think that politics should concern itself with various obstacles to flourishing, among them obstacles to a healthy sex life,” argues Zimmer. “And this is precisely where the redistribution of wealth, not of sex, becomes even more attractive.”
Zimmer contends that the problem of sexual fulfillment in America is directly tied to “financial instability and the anxiety and stress it entails,” remarking that “there’s nothing sexy about a society that forces millions of people to endure long hours, unpredictable work schedules, tyrannical management practices, and insufficient pay just to make (or try to make) ends meet.”
According to Zimmer, “these social ills could be easily remedied” by “laying hold of a few days’ worth of Jeff Bezos’ ‘earnings.’”
In addition to straightforward wealth distribution, Zimmer also advocates for “radically” reducing the length of the workday without reducing workers’ wages. “In other words,” he clarifies, “to redistribute leisure time more evenly and justly throughout society.”
As an example, he notes that German metalworkers recently “forced reluctant employers in their industry to grant them a 28-hour workweek for full-time pay,” asserting that Americans could enjoy similar indolence if only the government would increase taxes on “the wealthiest 1 percent.”
“How are people supposed to cultivate meaningful relationships—sexual or otherwise—or explore their inner desires and needs unless they have plenty of time (and energy) to do so?” the academic ponders. “In the U.S., we are forced to cram our dating and romantic lives into schedules strained by overly long and stressful work hours, sometimes relying on technology that has blurred the lines between work and play.”
Zimmer suggests that a reduced workday would allow more time for leisure, and in turn, allow Americans to cultivate romantic relationships that they otherwise may not have had.
“Stress, not technology or ‘immorality,’ is the main enemy of romance and libidos,” he states. “So if we want to give more people a chance at sexual fulfillment, what could be more effective than extra leisure time and a little bit of security?”
Zimmer concludes by arguing that Americans should “simply tax the rich, redistribute their wealth to everyone else, and eliminate many of the unsexy economic obstacles to sexual flourishing” instead of trying to turn back the clock or fussing “over the logistical difficulties or ‘creepiness’ of subsidizing sex robots.”
Campus Reform reached out to Zimmer for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.
Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @celinedryan