Oh, OK. So in that case, again, I think I think more or less the same in the two cases.

• For any given potential worker, it is good if they are able to have a job if they want one.
  • But no one in particular is obliged to give them a job.
  • (And I think at some point we will need a transition to a different way of organizing production that drops the idea that everyone should be working. But that's another matter.)
• For any given potential sexually active person, it is good if they are able to have plenty of satisfying sex if they want to.
  • But no one in particular is obliged to have sex with them.

I don't know to what extent this resembles the opinions of the politicians and pundits you have in mind. I would expect that most agree about jobs but many disagree about sex (on account of not thinking as I do that in general more sex is a good thing).

One way in which I would expect politicians and pundits to treat those two cases differently: if we think it good for more people to have jobs, it's socially and politically acceptable to suggest that incentives be put in place to encourage people to employ them; but if we think it good for more people to have sex, it's not so acceptable to suggest incentives for that. I think that shows that sex is a sensitive topic; I'm not sure it indicates anything worse.

The reaction advancedatheist got, so far as I can tell, was founded on the idea that he thinks women have an obligation to have sex with men. I don't know whether he actually does think that, but it's explicitly what Mirzhan_Irkegulov says he thinks advancedatheist thinks: "your belief that women as a group should be encouraged to have sex with men against their will".