A friend wrote me: 'I think Douthat's premises are all wrong and, as always, he tries to make it all about his understanding of Catholicism, but the underlying literature and concepts are worth engaging.'

Well here are some excerpts:

'For those more curious than martial, one useful path through this thicket is to look at areas where extremists and eccentrics from very different worlds are talking about the same subject. Such overlap is no guarantee of wisdom, but it’s often a sign that there’s something interesting going on.

Which brings me to the sex robots.

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?'

Read the article here.

Yes, Robin Hanson has a point. There is no good reason to assume that just distribution of money and power is important but just distribution of sex is just a private matter.
We could assume that sex can be bought and that after the just distribution of money and power everybody has the means to obtain the amount of sex that he or she may desire in order to not feel oppressed.
But most of us believe that sex should not be bought (perhaps for good reason) so then the state should step in and make sure that access to sex is rightfully and just redistributed among its citizens and lawful permanent residents. By the way, I believe that illegal aliens who pay taxes should be allowed to profit from the redistribution of sex by the state as well.