I refer not to literal asexuality in the sense of being an asexual and I don’t refer to not having sex in the literal sense. I have written about incels before on this blog and their etiology is not the lack of sex but their being adults in an adult culture with an adolscent-style league system of which they are at the bottom. I don’t believe in sex outside of marriage so on a fundamental level, I don’t agree with the ostensible and main explicit aim of the incel movement. That said, as said in that article, I am very much against a class of high school-like losers well into adulthood. The metaphorical sexuality is eudemonia and the metaphorical asexuality is a lack of eudemonia.
With regards to disbaility, there is an expectation that one removes oneself from society. Again, I got in trouble to the point of being suspended, from college for platonic harassment. I have never had an alcoholic beverage, done a recreational drug, had a first kiss, asked anyone on a romantic date, committed a property crime, been in a fight, discharged a firearm, consumed a tobacco product, and yet, I got in more trouble at the College of Charleston than over 95% of students who went there.
One huge question is what was their teleology for me? Had I done all of the things listed there, the college would have had no problem with me. I would have had no interactions with the Dean of Students or the campus police. My crimes were that it was a sundown town and I was supposed to get the fuck out. I could have been a bad boy so bad I’d make James Dean look like a nun and the authorities would have been perfectly fine with me but I was a nerdy good boy whose Asperger’s, in various ways, made people uncomfortable and that’s why they took me down.
In years past, I wouldn’t have gotten in trouble and my clean and relatively virtuous living would have gotten me goodie points. Society had weaker deontology and more virtue ethics. People tolerated discomfort and recognized character. While both the right and the left indulged in much sex and drugs and the right was more hypocritical about it, the old Conservatives did afford value to clean and virtuous living while the left, largely, spent the latter years of the 20th century rebelling against that and insisting that people should be judged by Rawlsian ethics, alone. That there was nothing wrong with hedonism and altruism, while they believed in it, it was an afterthought.
There is an irony with Rawlsian ethics when extended to regard comfort and related concepts as a personal negative liberty and having abolished all other forms of ethics. It means all unwanted people who interact with others are in the normative wrong for doing so. The Dean of Students sent me, in the emails regarding my suspension, language that screamed he regarded what I did as platonic cyberstalking by emphasizing the contact was unwanted. I didn’t have an articulate response at the time I was having so many and very intense panic and anxiety attacks being beside myself with terror.
My response, now, is that by taking consent to that degree that any clique that platonically rejects somebody can report them to the police or the dean thus turning the school into a fucking sundown town for social rejects. To regard all unwanted contact, especially non-violent and platonic contact, as illicit harassment it effectively becomes an “ugly law” where any marginalized person can’t interact with people without fear of retaliation. If I were some enraged or possessive ex-partner, his response would have made sense. I haven’t had my first kiss and I have never asked anyone on a romantic date in my life and after what I have been through, I’m not about to start. Their telology for me was “Fucking find a laundry closet and die!”
I have attempted suicide multiple times, only to be stopped by my amygdala when the noose was already around my neck. Had my lizard-brain not stopped me and it had been up to my prefrontal cortex, I’d have been long dead. Of course, they would never say they wanted that and would officially say they were against it but the question is what is the emergent teleology of their system based on what they do and their ideology? They didn’t want a eudemonia for me, their teleology wanted a world where everyone respected the negative liberties of one another and that was the extent of their teleology and those negative liberties used the fact that since discomfort was unwanted and thus non-consensual that it constituted the violation of a fundamental Lockean right to the person.
I believe in consent but not to the point that people who are different must leave any place or situation where people don’t like them. It is counter to human dignity and the right to eudemonia and the moral teleology of that and all institutions should be the dignity and eudemonia of their members. The disabled should not be expected to live lives of metaphorical asexuality but should be endowed the full fruits and honor of a verdant human life. It is against my religion to say there is a right to sexuality but fully in concert with my religion to say there is a right to humanity and if someone is not dangerous or sexual but are unwanted, the authorities need to say sometimes “They have a right stay. They’re human and shall be treated as such.”