Sex: basic human right?

[Alexandra-Sky 12606]

Question: I swear I read somewhere a little while back that Australia funds people with disability's seeing sex workers and the government even provides training for sex workers to be able to treat folks with disabilities properly/ in a non-ablist way... (Does anyone have a link or more info on this?)

 

 

As for the point about sex maybe being a human right but not being government funded:

 

Isn't housing and food and water a human right? Yet, we have to pay for all of them... (which I don't agree with but that's reality for you)

 

My point being is that when something is called a human right it is not funded by the government by default...

[VedaSloan 119179]

Question: I swear I read somewhere a little while back that Australia funds people with disability's seeing sex workers and the government even provides training for sex workers to be able to treat folks with disabilities properly/ in a non-ablist way... (Does anyone have a link or more info on this?)

 

 

As for the point about sex maybe being a human right but not being government funded:

 

Isn't housing and food and water a human right? Yet, we have to pay for all of them... (which I don't agree with but that's reality for you)

 

My point being is that when something is called a human right it is not funded by the government by default...

 

I think we might have been reading the same thing!

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

Possibly of interest:

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=250860&highlight=disabil%2A#post250860

 

http://www.cerb.ca/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=150951%3Cbr%20/%3E

[Guest ***t***iv***]

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

I would argue that those 'others' are the ones marginalized and deprived as a result of the social repression in regards to sexuality and prostitution. Therefore, criminalizing prostitution denies those whose sole avenue for successfully pursuing sexual gratification is prostitution. Even though it's not completely illegal, the standardizations that the illegality and/or the way social constructs portray this industry has the same effect.

If everyone who (for whatever reason) was unable or unsuccessful in their attempts, my perceptions are that they would be at higher risk of becoming sex offenders that put others and the 'offender' in immediate danger. I feel strongly that that is a much more fitting (as far as sexual behaviors go) prohibition to enforce than prostitution, for what I think of as obvious reasons.

 

Additional Comments:

 

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.

 

 

 

exactly! I offer as evidence... failure to thrive syndrome!

 

Additional Comments:

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).

kubrickfan

I don't know how to add comments with a nom, but as I like to play devils advocate, even though I don't particularly agree with your point, I have to admit you have a good one.

 

ps can anyone tell me how to add comments?

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

...ps can anyone tell me how to add comments?

 

Via the "Reputation for this Post" button. It's located at the top-right of each post!

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

other cultures precieve sex so differently then us here in the west. I always have the most respect for the way Japanese culture revered sex, and how it was welcomed in the home. Not something to be shunned or made taboo. If I am wrong, then forgive me, but I was told once that in Traditional Japanese, it most welcomed to hear the sounds of love coming form a houshold. I always loved that. As well as the traditional Geshia, wow!!

But in our own western way somehow we shun it, make it taboo but yet use it as a marketing tool for nearly everything, media etc... it so much a part of culture, yet not?? Hmmmm

[loopie 15358]

As for the point about sex maybe being a human right but not being government funded:

 

Isn't housing and food and water a human right? Yet, we have to pay for all of them... (which I don't agree with but that's reality for you)

 

My point being is that when something is called a human right it is not funded by the government by default...

 

Even in provinces such as Ontario where we receive a seperate water bill based on consumption, the government directly controls the price of water. The government also regulates rent and food prices. The government sets minimum wage and provides welfare based on the prices of rent, food, water etc. So basically the government makes sure that the necessities are affordable and that you have the money to afford them, which is close enough in my book to providing these necessities itself.

 

If the government actually did all this stuff itself, it would be incredibly costly and probably very inefficient. Regulation of prices and wages along with welfare are a better approach in my opinion.

[Phaedrus 209521]

An excellent debate!

 

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?

 

I disagree with this, I'm afraid (and with Scribbles' similar argument). Designating something as a basic human right does *not* oblige the government - or anyone else - to provide it. Saying that you have a right to sex doesn't mean that I have to have sex with you, or that the state should provide someone to do so, any more than your right to free speech obliges me to listen to you or the government to provide someone to do that. However, I think designating sex (or anything else) as a basic human right *does* oblige the government, and indeed the rest of society, to not do anything to deprive you of it. You can argue that we have a fundamental right to food; that doesn't mean the government has to provide me with meals, but it does mean it can't legitimately prevent me from feeding myself.

 

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.

 

But I *would* go ahead and make that argument. The question of whether sex is a basic human right *does* have a bearing on what the law relating to sex, and the provision thereof in exchange for money, should be. If it's a basic human right then it's absolutely not OK for the government to pass laws that prevent people from getting it.

 

Of course, all this hinges on whether we're going to define sex as a basic human right. I'd be inclined to say yes; maybe not up there with things like food and shelter and other necessities that you'll die from the lack of, but certainly up there with those things that make life bearable.

[scribbles 6031]

But, something making life "bearable" or more enjoyable isn't a good enough justification for it being declared a protected human right. And, the government could still pass laws restricting things like prostitution if sex were a right, because they are not restricting *all* ways of getting sex.

 

I know, I know, the argument has already been made that for some paying for sex is the only means to get it, but, really, that may be true in practice but not in theory. In theory, everyone has access to sex without paying for it. Whether the other person in the equation accepts is another matter. In theory, a sex worker could refuse just as easily. There is no obligation just because money is involved. It simply ups the odds, so to speak.

 

Sent from my HTC EVO 3D X515a using Tapatalk

[Alexandra-Sky 12606]

Even in provinces such as Ontario where we receive a seperate water bill based on consumption, the government directly controls the price of water. The government also regulates rent and food prices. The government sets minimum wage and provides welfare based on the prices of rent, food, water etc. So basically the government makes sure that the necessities are affordable and that you have the money to afford them, which is close enough in my book to providing these necessities itself.

 

If the government actually did all this stuff itself, it would be incredibly costly and probably very inefficient. Regulation of prices and wages along with welfare are a better approach in my opinion.

 

Whether or not the government providing all these things for free is inefficient, is sort of irrelevant when discussing the rights-based approach to them.

 

My point was to show that government funding is not a criteria for something to be considered a right

[loopie 15358]

I think I'm missing the point here (if there was one). I guess I jumped to the conclusion that anybody who wants sex to be declared a basic right wants to get government involved in sex. After all, who would be making this declaration other than some governing body, whether nation or international. I figured the declaration of sex as a basic human right was as a stepping stone to other legal reform or government funding. So to clear things up, my question is: what do you hope the declaration of sex as a basic human right would change?

[Kubrickfan 12836]

I dont mean to overstate the point, but most things that are found to be constitutional rights, or some other type of fundamental right, have to be provided by someone else if they are tangible things. After all, picking up on Alexandra Sky's point, we cant say that someone has a constitutional right to something like food and water unless we are willing to provide it if they are unable to supply it for themselves, cant we? After all, we just said it was a human/constitutional right, didn't we (smile)?

 

Alexandra, you're right as to your last post ... we can't use goverment funding as a basis for declaring something a right. But you necessarily have to consider whether funding is feasible before declaring something tangible (whether it be food, water, sex or health care) as a human right as someone else has to provide those things, and they're not going to do it for free.

 

That's why, at least in the U.S., our Founders declared only three things as fundamental rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (economic welfare). That's because all of those things can be pursued by individuals on their own without having anyone else providing anything for free.

 

I know things are a bit different in Canada, but that's a U.S. analogy.

[roamingguy 300292]

So to clear things up, my question is: what do you hope the declaration of sex as a basic human right would change?

 

Well I'll ponder a answer. Any sexual act between consenting adults is a basic human right. The state's role wouldn't be to make sure everyone has sex. But it's role would be in fact lessoned, for example prostitution laws would be rewritten to ensure women aren't being exploited/pimped out...in those cases women aren't consenting, they are being forced.

And hopefully with the acceptance legally of sex as a human right, there would be acceptance of prostitution, along with other avenues of sex, be it marriage/dating/one night stands from a bar pick-up etc. Sex as a right would also include acceptance of sexual practices that are now kept pretty much in the dark (ie bdsm)

As for being a right, and the question of regulation, well rights often do come with regulation. For example, voting...it's a right, but you have to be enumerated, provide ID at the polling station before marking the x. You have a right to government health care, but likewise, have to get a health card, requiring you to provide identification.

Some quick ramblings that may make no or little sense, but have pity on me, it's been a year of postings, I'm running out of gas LOL

RG :-)

[Code Blue 3585]

The difference between sex and all the other Charter Rights, is it is fundamentally a biological function, hard wired into the brain as a need, just as is hunger. The only difference between sex and eating or peeing, is that it involves, as often as not, another individual.

 

Leaving the latter element aside for the moment, how on earth can anyone conceive (pardon the wording) of enshrining a biological activity in law? From a teleological point of view, the pleasure of sex is almost irrelevant, yet that facet is the driver behind the sex industry. Whether the pleasure appears to come from intimacy, "chemistry" or ejaculation is secondary to the biology.

 

It is the involvement of the other individual which generates the heat. Since the dawn of social communities, for the most part sex has involved some kind of expense - see Foucault or look at the mother in law. I would argue that the concept that sex is somehow "free" exists only as a delusion in Western Society - where we are today.

 

There are bills I can pay today, and those which will be managed only by The Grim Reaper: both have their roles.

 

The problem comes with those unfortunates who have no capital to invest in either approach. Simply renaming it as a Right will not help them.

 

Happy New Year - it comes half an hour earlier here!!

 

CB

[Guest ***t***iv***]

aaah, thanks for the refresher WIT!

 

Via the "Reputation for this Post" button. It's located at the top-right of each post!

[GrenadeMan 280]

I couldn't agree with you more. Sex should be a basic human right.

 

It should not be limited to one's marriage.

 

There should however be some unwritten laws, such as no bare back, for the safety of the spouse.