Sex: basic human right?

[VedaSloan 119179]

In another thread discussing the genuineness (is that a word?) of the encounter, I mentioned that I thought that sex was a basic human right. Kubrickfan suggested I start this as a topic, so here we are!

 

My reasoning behind the assertion that sex is (or should be) a human right is that on a very basic level, everyone requires touch and intimacy. Sex doesn't have to be something that is limited to marriage or relationships and it's not a bad thing if you like to fuck all the time (join the club!). It's an emotional and physical release. I know when I'm cranky, a good fuck will make it better. I tend to think the world would be less fucked up if certain people were getting laid more! Society often puts restrictions on sexual behaviour and what makes a person worth sleeping with and that means that some people get the shaft when it comes to the sexin's. That's totally fucked up to me. Why shouldn't everyone be able to enjoy sex, when they want and how they want?

 

So Cerbies, what do you think?

[Malika Fantasy 144625]

Hmmm...now I am probably going to ponder for ever on that one.

 

I agree with you on the most part...but everyone? no, not in my eyes.If a pedophile, someone that only want to have sex with kids, is only obsess with them, shouldn't be allowed to have sex.

 

But as for the rest...fuck away! For me it's honestly a need...sometime physical one, but most of the times when I literally urge to be with someone...it's because I want to let go. I want to share a moment of vulnerability with someone that I think you can pretty much only access when being physically bond.

 

Thought one thing I found strange...sex is now really open, literally you open a magazine and bam sex! and orgasms! and whatever...but yet we are so up-tight about it! It's literally like you need to have lots of sex, BUT the society tell you, you need to feel guilty about it right after...

 

bah. I hump for fun. I try not to complicated my life with the "basic" sex...I already have hard time understanding bdsm and all that go with it:P

[Aspen Wilde 31370]

I believe that everyone should have the right to pursue the sex they want, with the consenting partners they desire, as often as they like. I think that the attitudes that would seek to limit, repress, or shame such activities are harmful to both individuals and society. The fact is, we are a very sexual species- and like our closest primate relatives, the chimps and the bonobos, we have sex not solely as a means of reproduction, but also as a way to form bonds, to relieve stress, to alleviate conflict, to show friendship and demonstrate love, and a whole host of other reasons. Desire and sexuality is part of what makes life so awesome. At its best, it can help us connect better with ourselves and with others. Of course it should be a human right. It's human nature!

[roamingguy 300292]

Along the same lines of thinking as Malika, I would say sex between consenting adults is a basic human right

But no one's need or right for sex should interfere with another person's right to say no, or a child's right not to have their innocence taken from them

But the human right or need to have sex, along with basic human intimacy and companionship should allow, without stigma, other avenues of sexual contact beyond dating/relationships/marriage. If sex is a basic human right, then professional sex workers (who freely as adults enter into the profession)

should be allowed to practice legally. They provide that basic human right to a lot of us, without the strings of dating/relationship/marriage, not to mention it's a hell of a lot cheaper too :-)

A rambling

RG

[ajd20000 655]

The philosophers here may wish to read Foucault's History of Sexuality. In my university days I struggled through half of the first volume. He says a lot of interesting things about guilt, repression, and how sexuality defines us, which was touched on in this thread.

[oldblueeyez 15475]

Do I smell a constitutional challenge? But who is going to be the brave man (or woman, I guess) who fights for his right?

 

"Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person."

 

A normal life involves sex.

[JuliasUndies 7288]

I mentioned that I thought that sex was a basic human right. Kubrickfan suggested I start this as a topic, so here we are!

 

 

I'd like to add to this sentence..and change it.

Sex is a basic human need, making sex a basic human right.

 

We have the right (or should have) to pursue our basic human needs like sex.

While there are a large group of those that remain without sex or give up sex, I for one would die without it..at least right now, while my hormones are high..I need it!

[scribbles 6031]

I think one could argue that sex is definitely a basic human need, as it is with all animals, and that it is our right to fulfill our needs within the boundaries of conduct that does not harm or deny others the same right.

 

But...

 

Arguing that prostitution should be decriminalized as a constitutional matter because criminalization deprives us of our right to satisfy our sexual needs?... I think that's taking it too far. Criminalization does not deny us our right, it just denies us one particular avenue to satisfy our needs. It would be argued that there are others.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515a using Tapatalk

[oldblueeyez 15475]

Sometimes there are no other avenues.

The best thing to do is document all your attempts to have sex: pick-up bars, dating sites, etc. If all attempts to attain sex fail within a reasonable amount of time, say a month, then you should have the right to see a service provider legally. What are you supposed to do, wait out this sexless life until you win the handsome gene pool the next life around?

I don't think so.

[VedaSloan 119179]

I think one could argue that sex is definitely a basic human need, as it is with all animals, and that it is our right to fulfill our needs within the boundaries of conduct that does not harm or deny others the same right.

 

But...

 

Arguing that prostitution should be decriminalized as a constitutional matter because criminalization deprives us of our right to satisfy our sexual needs?... I think that's taking it too far. Criminalization does not deny us our right, it just denies us one particular avenue to satisfy our needs. It would be argued that there are others.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515a using Tapatalk

 

You may try every avenue there is, but if no one will fuck you what are you supposed to do? People with disabilities are a perfect example. Most of the world either pretends they don't exist, or pretends they're asexual. One of my clients (not on CERB) hadn't been touched (fucking touched! not a caress, not a brush, not a handshake) in over five years.

 

But anyway, I wasn't arguing that prostitution should be decriminalized on that argument. I was just saying it's a shame that certain people can't get laid when they should be able to.

 

Sometimes there are no other avenues.

The best thing to do is document all your attempts to have sex: pick-up bars, dating sites, etc. If all attempts to attain sex fail within a reasonable amount of time, say a month, then you should have the right to see a service provider legally. What are you supposed to do, wait out this sexless life until you win the handsome gene pool the next life around?

I don't think so.

 

You said it.

[Lowdark 5613]

Along the same lines of thinking as Malika, I would say sex between consenting adults is a basic human right

But no one's need or right for sex should interfere with another person's right to say no, or a child's right not to have their innocence taken from them

But the human right or need to have sex, along with basic human intimacy and companionship should allow, without stigma, other avenues of sexual contact beyond dating/relationships/marriage. If sex is a basic human right, then professional sex workers (who freely as adults enter into the profession)

should be allowed to practice legally. They provide that basic human right to a lot of us, without the strings of dating/relationship/marriage, not to mention it's a hell of a lot cheaper too :-)

A rambling

RG

 

Well said. As long as it's between consenting adults and not hurting anyone else (emotionally and or physically) it should remain judgement free regardless who's involved, their gender or anythng else.

[Kubrickfan 12836]

I hope Berlin doesn't think I was trying to set her up (smile), but I would argue that the answer is no. However, you do (even up in Canada ... smile) have a right to "liberty" which generally means a right to act, believe in something, and express yourself without government interference as long as you are not interfering with the rights of someone else or are creating a danger to yourself or someone else. Laws are enacted to balance your right of liberty against whever society (or at least a majority of lawmakers at the time) decides is proper and not proper.

 

For sex to be a basic human right, which would normally be construed to be a constitutional right, the government could not interfere in your exercise of that right, and the government would also be responsible to provide you with sex if you were not able to obtain it on your own. That cant be the case with sex, can it? A whole new branch of government! And if the goverment has to provide it, who is going to be drafted or hired to actually provide it?

 

No, I think sex is a lot more complicated than that and it falls somewhere within your liberties under the Canadian constitution; as such, its subject to the laws are enacted to regulate it, subject maybe to an exception for sex in marriage. Everything else is up for grabs (no pun intended).

[JuliasUndies 7288]

You may try every avenue there is, but if no one will fuck you what are you supposed to do?

 

That's what we are for, soo prostitution should be legal all over, for especially the disabled or to care for the basic human needs of those that can't get it themselves.

[Lowdark 5613]

I hope Berlin doesn't think I was trying to set her up (smile), but I would argue that the answer is no. However, you do (even up in Canada ... smile) have a right to "liberty" which generally means a right to act, believe in something, and express yourself without government interference as long as you are not interfering with the rights of someone else or are creating a danger to yourself or someone else. Laws are enacted to balance your right of liberty against whever society (or at least a majority of lawmakers at the time) decides is proper and not proper.

 

For sex to be a basic human right, which would normally be construed to be a constitutional right, the government could not interfere in your exercise of that right, and the government would also be responsible to provide you with sex if you were not able to obtain it on your own. That cant be the case with sex, can it? A whole new branch of government! And if the goverment has to provide it, who is going to be drafted or hired to actually provide it?

 

No, I think sex is a lot more complicated than that and it falls somewhere within your liberties under the Canadian constitution; as such, its subject to the laws are enacted to regulate it, subject maybe to an exception for sex in marriage. Everything else is up for grabs (no pun intended).

 

If we were to split hairs, I think it could be argued that sex is a basic human right for no other reason than it's need for procreation. Without the free exercising of sex, no Human Race. But I don't think if the government were to recognize it as such, it would mean a new branch of goverment to offer it. Food and water are basic human neccessities, and the government does not provide those (ask the homeless or many souls who live on reserves). Sex should be considered a human right (and need) just as much as good health and happiness.

[VedaSloan 119179]

I hope Berlin doesn't think I was trying to set her up (smile), but I would argue that the answer is no. However, you do (even up in Canada ... smile) have a right to "liberty" which generally means a right to act, believe in something, and express yourself without government interference as long as you are not interfering with the rights of someone else or are creating a danger to yourself or someone else. Laws are enacted to balance your right of liberty against whever society (or at least a majority of lawmakers at the time) decides is proper and not proper.

 

For sex to be a basic human right, which would normally be construed to be a constitutional right, the government could not interfere in your exercise of that right, and the government would also be responsible to provide you with sex if you were not able to obtain it on your own. That cant be the case with sex, can it? A whole new branch of government! And if the goverment has to provide it, who is going to be drafted or hired to actually provide it?

 

No, I think sex is a lot more complicated than that and it falls somewhere within your liberties under the Canadian constitution; as such, its subject to the laws are enacted to regulate it, subject maybe to an exception for sex in marriage. Everything else is up for grabs (no pun intended).

 

 

Naughty boy!

 

I think oldblueeyes might be onto something:

 

"Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person."

 

A normal life involves sex.

 

But as far as ACTUAL constitutionally protected rights go, I am mostly in the dark. It's really not my area of expertise.

 

That being said, the government doesn't have to be responsible for it necessarily in the way you've outlined. It might translate to something along the lines of sex therapy that could be included in insurance or something. Someone out there will get what I'm trying to say, LOL.

[roamingguy 300292]

A famous quote from Pierre Elliott Trudeau comes to mind

 

'There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation'

 

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/rights_freedoms/topics/538/

 

We now return you back to regular programming LOL

 

RG

[scribbles 6031]

I don't want to come across as saying everyone has ample opportunity outside of paying for sex. I'm absolutely, horrifically inept when it comes to finding a woman, which is why I have been single for a retardedly long stretch of time. It's not a lack of looks, or personality or whatever. I'm just bad at getting into a relationship. So, I'd say most avenues are not available to me either.

 

All I meant was that we are almost describing sex work as healthcare. I'm not entirely against the notion of sex work having therapeutic value, because I think the argument is there that it has. But, if we try and portray it as therapeutic in the sense that it meets a distinct and important need for those who cannot find another avenue, it opens up the topic of regulation. Other therapists need to be licensed and regulated. So, why wouldn't sex worker/therapists?

 

I think everyone should have ample opportunity to satisfy their sexual needs. As a very sexual person who cannot possibly afford to satisfy my needs fully, and who can't find a girlfriend with a map and flashlight, I feel the frustration acutely. But, there's the other issue: if sex is a basic right, (and I'm playing devil's advocate, so please don't pillory me) wouldn't it have to be made affordable or free for all? Otherwise, that right is still being restricted.

 

Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515a using Tapatalk

[Guest L**gh M****e]

Sex is a natural sense like as the air we breath, the soft skin we feel, the words we speak, the beautiful sounds we hear and most of all the sweet sense of smell (sex is right up there). It has been given to us freely, along the side with our freedom of choice etc...I am my own person and I allow no one, body or government to dictate what my given freedom rights are...we are all to our own, that's what makes us unique!

[playtoe 201]

Even thought I try to maintain what I feel is generally a basic level of goodness within my life, I admit I am not a religious person; however, while reading this thread I have to ponder at what point do our lines become blurred?

 

At what point is sexual behaviour move from being a right (which fundamentally I agree) to acknowledging that some former teachings still hold true.

 

I'm always interested to hear from people who practice their religious beliefs and how we can evolve our fundamental why of thinking to include safe, sane sexual practices.

 

I am open (after taking a number of years to really come to terms with and appreciate) to poly relationships, gays, lesbians, take your pick. So long as your a good person, your a good person know matter what your sexual preferences may be.

 

That being said, I think there must be some basis for past beliefs to still hold true. Perhaps arguments for monogamous relationships could be made due to the higher risk of STD/I's.

 

Perhaps rights and responsibilities should go hand in hand?

 

Sorry, I'm rambling... past my bed time :)

[DixonD 817]

A great topic!

 

I agree with the all the points made but the problem I find is that basic human rights are sometimes at odds with influential groups of people and gets in the way of business (Maybe sex wouldn't sell anymore if it was readily available to everyone).

 

 

But imagine a world where women don't get labeled as sluts because they "oh my god!" have sex with more than one person! Where people don't have to live fake lives in order to hide their sexual orientation from friends and family. Where young people can get proper sex education. Where violence against sex workers isn't ignored by our legal system and finally, where the individuals I just listed above and many others don't have to be ignored/shamed/abused by those who think they know what is best for us (while not judging their own actions of course). I believe many would like this world better and I like to think we are slowly getting there!!

[etasman2000 15994]

It would depend on your views of sex.

 

Sex is pair bonding (and procreation)

 

or

 

Sex is pleasure

[Kubrickfan 12836]

Berlin --

 

I told you this would be a good discussion!

 

Everyone is raising a lot of good points here. Two additional thoughts:

 

1. I dont think that the right to "life" as stated has to do with how you live your life, but instead ... literally ... that the government does not have the right to take that life.

 

2. In addition to the right of liberty there also appears to exist in Canada a right of association ... that might be helpful as well although that right is usually associated with assembly for political purposes.

[oldblueeyez 15475]

1. I dont think that the right to "life" as stated has to do with how you live your life, but instead ... literally ... that the government does not have the right to take that life.

 

You're right.

 

Security of Person is more appropriate: "the right to security of the person, which consists of rights to privacy of the body and its health and of the right protecting the "psychological integrity" of an individual".

 

Lack of a fulfilling sex life can certainly affect one's "psychological integrity", as you might feel yourself unwanted and worthless, leading to depression and anxiety, and if those feelings become suicidal, then it affects your Right to Life.

 

There is now a precedent for financial awards of up to $5000 for breach of Charter Rights.

 

Medical marijuana was once illegal until the Supreme Court declared that it violated our Constitutional rights. You never know what the future holds. God bless Pierre E. Trudeau!

 

Hmmm, maybe I'll have to FIGHT, FOR OUR RIGHT, TO WHOOPIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[loopie 15358]

As far rights to sex go, I'm with Kubrickfan in that I believe in protecting the right of adults to persue the consentual sexual relationship of their choice. I do not believe that we as a society have a moral obligation to provide sex to the sexless. Although anybody who wants to earn the title of "The Mother Teresa of Pityfucks" has my admiration.

 

Even though I'm a pretty big socialist who believes in lots of government regulation, sex is one area where I think all the government has to do is protect our freedoms to do as we please. I really don't need my taxes going towards some Ministry Of Shagging to tell me what the official Canadian way to screw is or the correct frequency. And such research would be required if sex were to gain recognition as a form of therapy covered by our health plan.

[VedaSloan 119179]

I don't want to come across as saying everyone has ample opportunity outside of paying for sex. I'm absolutely, horrifically inept when it comes to finding a woman, which is why I have been single for a retardedly long stretch of time. It's not a lack of looks, or personality or whatever. I'm just bad at getting into a relationship. So, I'd say most avenues are not available to me either.

 

All I meant was that we are almost describing sex work as healthcare. I'm not entirely against the notion of sex work having therapeutic value, because I think the argument is there that it has. But, if we try and portray it as therapeutic in the sense that it meets a distinct and important need for those who cannot find another avenue, it opens up the topic of regulation. Other therapists need to be licensed and regulated. So, why wouldn't sex worker/therapists?

 

I think everyone should have ample opportunity to satisfy their sexual needs. As a very sexual person who cannot possibly afford to satisfy my needs fully, and who can't find a girlfriend with a map and flashlight, I feel the frustration acutely. But, there's the other issue: if sex is a basic right, (and I'm playing devil's advocate, so please don't pillory me) wouldn't it have to be made affordable or free for all? Otherwise, that right is still being restricted.

 

Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515a using Tapatalk

 

I really had no idea when Kubrickfan asked me to start this thread that there would be so many interesting points and comments. I am glad I started this thread.

 

In my original post I was definitely not thinking about healthcare or government protected rights. I mentioned the idea of sex therapy because I read somewhere (and it might have been here: http://www.tlc-trust.org.uk/advice/page6.html#comms) that some places have special needs facilities that specifically hook up patients with sex care therapists (or whatever you would like to call them) understanding that people with disabilities have sexual needs like everyone else.

 

I am really REALLY uncomfortable with the notion of government regulation (this is just my personal opinion, but in my eyes the government is just a big thug and agree with Trudeau that the government has no business in the bedroom). I just (maybe idealistically) wish the world were more understanding and open-minded about sex and sexual needs. I want to live in a world where sex workers are respected and recommended when someone is having trouble finding sex for free. I want to be able to visit special needs facilities and be welcomed. I want care providers and nurses and home-care workers to say, "You should consider a sex worker!" I want women to realize that it's totally okay for them to have sexual needs and that seeing a sex worker could be an excellent way to meet those needs without having to hit up a bar or date some dude off of CL. I want wives to tell their husbands it's okay to see a sex worker if they themselves are not up for sex and that it doesn't mean that their partners don't love them.

 

If anyone is interested in reading it, there is a really fabulous article written by Gayle Rubin that I swear by. It's called "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality." (you can read most of it here, on google books, though pages are missing http://books.google.ca/books?id=qNtNLohiboUC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=gayle+rubin+thinking+sex+notes+for+a+radical+theory+of+the+politics+of+sexuality&source=bl&ots=wTOuGyLx9h&sig=dM-DwXYrmifBre4XUObtAhqgH9s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ECT-TvPbGYne0QGBjKTHAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=gayle%20rubin%20thinking%20sex%20notes%20for%20a%20radical%20theory%20of%20the%20politics%20of%20sexuality&f=false)