"Well, actually, first it brings me to the case of Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous?

After all, he wrote, 'one might plausibly argue that those with much less access to sex suffer to a similar degree as those with low income, and might similarly hope to gain from organizing around this identity, to lobby for redistribution along this axis and to at least implicitly threaten violence if their demands are not met.'”

The above is the quote from the article.

Incels are products of the commodification of sex under capitalism. To be sure, the capitalism has fought against the commodification of race and women, in an enlightened self-interest to provide the labor-pool: we are trying to get out of the worldview that other people, especially women, cannot and should not be treated as "properties." However, this fight isn't exactly effective or in earnest. Under capitalism, what's been occuring is the commodification of sex, rather than commodification of women. Even left-wing liberals feel confused and ambivalent about this. Should prostitution be legal? Would the legalization of prostitution be pro-feminist or anti-feminist? What about porn?

But the prostitution and porn are only two obvious examples of commodification of sex. Commodification of sex iimplies a free-agent making a market choice to buy and sell sex, like a wage-earner selling their labor, and the market decides the price and the value of the particular sexual gratification.

Under capitalism, one's ability (perceived or real) to deliver sexual gratification to another is seen as something that can be bought or sold "freely" and is in fact bought and sold (freely or otherwise) in day to day reality.

Some would ask, is commodification of sex a good thing or a bad thing? Which is related to the earlier question: is porn empowering or demeaning to women?

But I think that is the wrong question. I think the more important questions is: why. Why has sex been commodified? The sex has been commodified precisely because it benefits the ones with more purchasing power, and there are those who rely upon it to make a living. Like Marx said (I am paraphrasing here of course), in capitalism, the only thing that is worse than being exploited by capitalists is NOT being exploited by capitalists. That means, you don't get to make a living.

The incels see sex as commodity, and in a perverse sense of "justice" they are demanding equal distribution. The question isn't whether or not sex is or isn't a commodity; because it has become commodity. The question is: should it continue to be? I suspect that de-commodification of sex is going to take more than meditation, or a stern lecture. It would take more fundamental change in our understanding of what it means to "own" anything, not just sex.