It proceeds much as you’d expect, and Shakes has already dealt with the general arguments well. But this is the key point-missing:
But I expect the logic of commerce and technology will be consciously harnessed, as already in pornography, to address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing. The left’s increasing zeal to transform prostitution into legalized and regulated “sex work” will have this end implicitly in mind, the libertarian (and general male) fascination with virtual-reality porn and sex robots will increase as those technologies improve — and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.
I strongly recommend this Jill Filipovic thread, especially:
Also: if incels simply wanted sex, they could pay for it. What they want is a significantly more attractive girlfriend who will have sex with them, love them despite their awful personalities, and not expect to be treated as a full human in return.
— Jill Filipovic (@JillFilipovic) May 2, 2018
Right. You can’t “redistribute sex” to please MRAs for the simple reason that Veblen goods can’t be redistributed. What “incels” want is not just sex but a public relationship with a particular kind of woman who will give them higher status within a continuity. While sex work should be decriminalized and destigmatized, this won’t solve that problem. And the “redistribute sex” chin-strokers never seem to consider what will happen to Stacy when the extremely implausible theory that violent misogynistic impulses can be fucked away turns out to be false.