Does everyone have a right to sex (serious replies only please)

[nakedfrog]

Ok, mental health counselling. Most consider it a right now. Maybe rightly so. Maybe not. No one can really say.

So if someone has issues because of lack of sex, and the best treatment that the counselor or an actual doctor prescribes is to have sex, and there is no one available, should we as a society subsidize their access to it? This is not NOW, but very conceivable in the future. Should it be?

Now you can say mental health is a person's own issue. We are not responsible for it. But then you have shootings and people cry guns and mental health and so on. So what is a right anyway?

How about you tell us what you think a right is?

 

[Noah Abrams]

I am glad most here have deliberately decided to not read a piece before commenting on it, or coming up with juvenile level slurs. So what was it about the vile one's supporters being ignorant hicks (which they are by the way)

 

[Noah Abrams]

How about you tell us what you think a right is?

I am a questioner. Life doesn't give you black and white answers to most things. I am more interested in the philosophy that defines what is a right.

 

[WelshBloke]

I am glad most here have deliberately decided to not read a piece before commenting on it, or coming up with juvenile level slurs. So what was it about the vile one's supporters being ignorant hicks (which they are by the way)

YOU set out YOUR argument and support it YOURSELF, then maybe people will address it.

 

[WelshBloke]

I am a questioner. Life doesn't give you black and white answers to most things. I am more interested in the philosophy that defines what is a right.

So entitled!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Sex is just about as basic a human need as food and shelter. You don't need ample amount of research (which there is) on the almost necessity of it. And the negative physical and psychological affects because of the lack of it, especially it is over an extended period of time. This has been known all through the history of mankind.

But it is also increasingly merit based. Some people don't have the looks, or personality. Some are weird. Some are just nasty. But when it comes to right, the liberal order does not discriminate based on any of those. Here is Ross Douthat in a thoughtful and thought provoking piece (as is almost always the case with his writings)

"because like other forms of neoliberal deregulation the sexual revolution created new winners and losers, new hierarchies to replace the old ones, privileging the beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways and relegating others to new forms of loneliness and frustration."

The piece has so many interesting points. But to take the last one...when prostitution / sex work becomes legal (which is a matter of when only), it is almost inevitable that there would be demands that the society subsidize the access to it for those who are otherwise unable to afford it. Same goes for tech, the virtual sex, the robots and all. Considering how we as a society define rights, it is hard to argue against such a right on the face of it.

"and at a certain point, without anyone formally debating the idea of a right to sex, right-thinking people will simply come to agree that some such right exists, and that it makes sense to look to some combination of changed laws, new technologies and evolved mores to fulfill it.

Whether sex workers and sex robots can actually deliver real fulfillment is another matter. But that they will eventually be asked to do it, in service to a redistributive goal that for now still seems creepy or misogynist or radical, feels pretty much inevitable."

Masturbate all you like. In private please and clean the rest room stall before you leave. Concealed carry of a paper towel or napkin in mandatory.

 

[Amused]

I am a questioner. Life doesn't give you black and white answers to most things. I am more interested in the philosophy that defines what is a right.

No you're not. You're a parrot who cannot break from the talking points you heard from your cult of personality. When explained to you over and over again why this is a failed argument, you keep bleating out the same failed talking points.

Seriously people, /thread. This is argument by proxy. We're arguing with a talking point parrot here. I'm not willing to debate the individual who didn't even come up with this assine incel inspired attempt at equivalence and you shouldn't either.

 

[soulcougher73]

Legalize it.
Regulate it.
Tax it.
Test it.

But do NOT subsidize people who cannot afford to pay for their sex. They will just have to go without or do it the old fashioned way and find someone to take pity on them.

Maybe Christian Charities can be set up for the needy....

 

[interchange]

In a nutshell, the issue that these people have is not a lack of sex, it is a lack of intimacy, and a sex robot or doll will never provide that, and no person can ever be forced to provide it either.

I was going to post a more complicated version of this, but honestly I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I will say that when people have a genuine need frustrated (intimacy) they may try to aggressively seek to obtain power through something representative of that need (sex including coersed sexual contact and rape). And if that attempt is frustrated things can become dangerous.

I think the real question is whether or not intimacy or power are rights.

But I have a more fundamental question. What makes something a right, anyway? If society decides it is best for everyone to have access to it, does it become a right? I don't feel healthcare for instance is a right, but I do think we are better off as a country by providing universal healthcare.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Ok, mental health counselling. Most consider it a right now. Maybe rightly so. Maybe not. No one can really say.

It is not so much that we consider it a right, it is that we consider it good for society to give people access to it. We have decided that society as a whole benefits by granting people some access to it.

This is where it think your argument starts to fall apart. You conflating several different concepts of a 'right', and then choosing which ever one suits for your argument.

No one thinks that people should be guaranteed access to sex. It is not a right in that sense.
People do think that banning sex would be wrong. That the freedom to choose to have sex is a right.

 

[zinfamous]

Well put. Yes, something along those lines.

Hmm.

I am honestly going to say, now, that I can't disagree with that at all.

The issue everyone is running into here is that when you say a "right," it implies something that can't be removed, that a law cannot be made to prevent you from "that thing." Tying sex to a right, as we understand it in the US, is not logically sound, because it implies something of an entitlement that, to be fulfilled, means some authoritative body to make that possible and, in consequence, supplying another human to make that happen. This is obviously not possible in a free society. It implies that one person has lost their right of choice at the expense of yours. That, and the conflation of sex being on the same level of biological need as food, water, shelter. It simply isn't true and can't possibly be argued along those lines.

However, if "right to sex" simply means legalized, highly-regulated and safe prostitution, then yes, of course. That is something of a liberal position, I think, though more of a very libertopian position. I think you will find a significant number of conservatives that could support it as well. And while I do support this in theory, it is still highly problematic, in actual practice. The thought is that tight regulation reduces and hopefully eliminates exploitation and illegal sex trafficking, but in what is probably the western word's model for this, Holland, there is still a fair amount of trafficking and exploitation of minors that goes on. So while I support it, I don't currently see the best solution to make it work properly. ....but I am not one for making the perfect the enemy of the good. If these practices can at least be significantly reduced, then that is obviously a useful benefit.

If you are going further and arguing as I posted above, that access to regulated sex, in whatever form, could (should) be subsidized, then that is a hypothetical future problem that I am not yet aware of. We need to data to make that a reasonable possibility, but even so, I am not sure how to get such a study approved for valid testing. A well-controlled study, anyway. I can sure think of a way to model it, but the regulations, anything having to do with humans, would probably never allow it today.

So, if that's what you're getting it, then consider me less jerky from here on out.

 

[Paratus]

The OP has already been turned down by his toaster.

Its why we have this thread. I thought the thread trying to redefine racism was stupid, but this out stupids that one even. The competition for dumbest thread starter is going to be fierce this year.

You know I used think that scene in Deliverance was to shock the audience with the threat of male rape. Now, thanks to OP I realize it was a reasoned debate on the finer points of tax policy and government subsidies of needs. With the hillbillys playing the role of the citizen with unmet needs and Ned Beatty the role of the government subsidy, aka government pork....

 

[Blackjack200]

I am glad most here have deliberately decided to not read a piece before commenting on it, or coming up with juvenile level slurs. So what was it about the vile one's supporters being ignorant hicks (which they are by the way)

Ross Douthat is a garbage writer. Reading his dreck is the most offensive thing you've proposed in this thread.

 

[zinfamous]

Legalize it.
Regulate it.
Tax it.
Test it.

But do NOT subsidize people who cannot afford to pay for their sex. They will just have to go without or do it the old fashioned way and find someone to take pity on them.

Maybe Christian Charities can be set up for the needy....

I'm sure there are plenty of "celibate" priests that would be willing to volunteer their time to such charities....

too soon?

 

[pmv]

If you read the piece, you will see that is the problem the writer is wrestling with himself. What exactly is a right? What are the things that people have a right to? Who defines them? How does that change over time? Will sex be included in it in due time?

Well, I've always had some doubts about the concept, owing to having been raised as a leftist rather than a liberal. A strong emphasis on rights is a liberal thing, not a leftist thing. But I would never claim to have a fully thought-through philosophy about the topic. I just can't help noticing that 'rights' do seem to be identified rather selectively, depending on who has the most power. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, was largely written by British Conservatives, and it shows (so it's ironic that many of them now want to withdraw from it).

But really, what is your point? Are you, as I suspect, trying to make some sort of reductio ad absurdum argument? Is the implication supposed to be that a right to housing or food leads inexorably to a right to sexual contact? So therefore one should reject all claims for meeting people's needs, all 'positive rights' entirely?

I don't see why, because there's a big difference with regard to how it interacts with the rights of others. With material wealth there's a fundamental element of doubt about who owns that wealth in the first place. Especially true for housing (because it requires land). That doesn't arise when it comes to sex, people do own their own bodies.

Plus you don't even need to invoke 'rights', as it can come down to just practicalities - if your system doesn't make it possible for a sufficient number to attain their needs, they may pull down your system. I don't see that happening with sex (sad incel fantasies aside), so I don't think it's the same issue.

 

[Noah Abrams]

Hmm.

I am honestly going to say, now, that I can't disagree with that at all.

The issue everyone is running into here is that when you say a "right," it implies something that can't be removed, that a law cannot be made to prevent you from "that thing." Tying sex to a right, as we understand it in the US, is not logically sound, because it implies something of an entitlement that, to be fulfilled, means some authoritative body to make that possible and, in consequence, supplying another human to make that happen. This is obviously not possible in a free society. It implies that one person has lost their right of choice at the expense of yours. That, and the conflation of sex being on the same level of biological need as food, water, shelter. It simply isn't true and can't possibly be argued along those lines.

However, if "right to sex" simply means legalized, highly-regulated and safe prostitution, then yes, of course. That is something of a liberal position, I think, though more of a very libertopian position. I think you will find a significant number of conservatives that could support it as well. And while I do support this in theory, it is still highly problematic, in actual practice. The thought is that tight regulation reduces and hopefully eliminates exploitation and illegal sex trafficking, but in what is probably the western word's model for this, Holland, there is still a fair amount of trafficking and exploitation of minors that goes on. So while I support it, I don't currently see the best solution to make it work properly. ....but I am not one for making the perfect the enemy of the good. If these practices can at least be significantly reduced, then that is obviously a useful benefit.

If you are going further and arguing as I posted above, that access to regulated sex, in whatever form, could (should) be subsidized, then that is a hypothetical future problem that I am not yet aware of. We need to data to make that a reasonable possibility, but even so, I am not sure how to get such a study approved for valid testing. A well-controlled study, anyway. I can sure think of a way to model it, but the regulations, anything having to do with humans, would probably never allow it today.

So, if that's what you're getting it, then consider me less jerky from here on out.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. No I never argued for someone to have sex against their will to satisfy someone else. Neither did the opinion piece. Alas such is the nature of mob thinking and internet (same thing?) that people will hear or read without actually reading or hearing.

Two important points:

1. You said "It implies that one person has lost their right of choice at the expense of yours". That already happens in society all the time. There are so many drug addicts, each using up tens of thousands of dollars in various treatments, rehab centers etc - those dollars from people who have no choice in the matter, because govt takes it from them. The addicts continue their ways and each taking away more and more thousands of dollars...you can just imagine the whole amount. So the choice of people has been taken away. It is their hard earned money, through blood and tears, that they can't donate to their own charity of choice, or give to someone they know who is a deserving poor. Their choice has been taken away at the expense of someone else - just as you wrote above.

2. Yes, access to legal sex. Just like access to birth control etc. Because people need birth control otherwise the physical and financial burdens on them will be too huge. There is no doubt that in time there will be consensus about the NEED to have sex, because it will be argued that the benefits are immense to the society. So it is highly likely that this too would be another thing where people's choice would be taken away at the expense of others. Their money would be used to provide to others what is perceived as beneficial to society as a whole

 

[Moonbeam]

What I see or feel about all of this is an issue created by fear and its attendant reach to intellectualism to paper over that fear. For me the solution or answer to the problem of sexual need is not in satisfaction of that need, but in understanding what drives that need and why. We hear in this a need for sex based on a physical drive and a deeper or more complex need for intimacy. What we see in this is the desire to be loved, and that is the problem. That is a hole in the soul that can never be filled externally. It, the thread, the topic, the intellectual questions thereby raised are all the result of the existential fact that we do not love ourselves. The real need, the real hole in the soul that we struggle to fill are products of the mind that exist only when we seek out there what can only be satisfied by being. Need for anything does not exist for the lover because the lover and the beloved are one. Did you but suffer you would not suffer. The self divided against the self experiences separation. The lover is at one with love. You can't fear and feel at the same time. Fear is the absence of being. To be is the end of questions. One is or one is not. Where is the on and off switch?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Everyone has a right to sex just not, a right to include anyone else without their consent.

 

[WelshBloke]

Thank you for the thoughtful response. No I never argued for someone to have sex against their will to satisfy someone else. Neither did the opinion piece. Alas such is the nature of mob thinking and internet (same thing?) that people will hear or read without actually reading or hearing.

Two important points:

1. You said "It implies that one person has lost their right of choice at the expense of yours". That already happens in society all the time. There are so many drug addicts, each using up tens of thousands of dollars in various treatments, rehab centers etc - those dollars from people who have no choice in the matter, because govt takes it from them. The addicts continue their ways and each taking away more and more thousands of dollars...you can just imagine the whole amount. So the choice of people has been taken away. It is their hard earned money, through blood and tears, that they can't donate to their own charity of choice, or give to someone they know who is a deserving poor. Their choice has been taken away at the expense of someone else - just as you wrote above.

2. Yes, access to legal sex. Just like access to birth control etc. Because people need birth control otherwise the physical and financial burdens on them will be too huge. There is no doubt that in time there will be consensus about the NEED to have sex, because it will be argued that the benefits are immense to the society. So it is highly likely that this too would be another thing where people's choice would be taken away at the expense of others. Their money would be used to provide to others what is perceived as beneficial to society as a whole

So you're arguing that the government should cover peoples basic needs and that sex is one of those?

So basically increase peoples welfare payments, not whine about what they spend it on and legalise prostitution?

That's basically your argument?

Just to be clear.

That's what you're arguing for?

 

[WHAMPOM]

God! Are we back to arguing with some idiot that tolerant people should be tolerant of other people's intolerance?

 

[SMOGZINN]

God! Are we back to arguing with some idiot that tolerant people should be tolerant of other people's intolerance?

That and that any time the government does anything it is theft.
I am at this point fairly certain that the poster is 20 years old and had just read Ayn Rand for the first time and thinks libertarianism is a pretty good idea. He probably thinks he is making clever arguments.

 

[WelshBloke]

God! Are we back to arguing with some idiot that tolerant people should be tolerant of other people's intolerance?

I just want to find out how disengenous and hypocritical hes willing to be on a public forum.

 

[Noah Abrams]

What I see or feel about all of this is an issue created by fear and its attendant reach to intellectualism to paper over that fear. For me the solution or answer to the problem of sexual need is not in satisfaction of that need, but in understanding what drives that need and why. We hear in this a need for sex based on a physical drive and a deeper or more complex need for intimacy. What we see in this is the desire to be loved, and that is the problem. That is a hole in the soul that can never be filled externally. It, the thread, the topic, the intellectual questions thereby raised are all the result of the existential fact that we do not love ourselves. The real need, the real hole in the soul that we struggle to fill are products of the mind that exist only when we seek out there what can only be satisfied by being. Need for anything does not exist for the lover because the lover and the beloved are one. Did you but suffer you would not suffer. The self divided against the self experiences separation. The lover is at one with love. You can't fear and feel at the same time. Fear is the absence of being. To be is the end of questions. One is or one is not. Where is the on and off switch?

Ah Zen again! I need to talk to you more about it. You had said you had started reading about it at one stage. Which book would you recommend?

But more practically, how would you go about suggesting someone about how to experience it? Any ...I don't know the right words..any particular thing you did if you were with a Zen teacher? Thanks

 

[Noah Abrams]

had just read Ayn Rand for the first time and thinks libertarianism is a pretty good idea. He probably thinks he is making clever arguments.

Haha...I am a former liberal. You can say I grew up as one. And it was not any book that turned me away from that. But to see the actual lived reality and experience of it. I found there was a HUGE difference in that and what I had been reading and believing about the left and its views. People like Krugman and many many others for example

But no, I am not making clever arguments. Life is too complicated

 

[William Gaatjes]

I find it a downfall of society if i have to pay taxes so others can have sex.
If i want luxury, i have to work for it to earn money to be able to afford that luxury.
If i want food or other items that i desire, i have to work for it.
Why should someone else get that for free.

I say no, never should society pay for people to have sex.
If you want to get laid, learn to love first.
This is the principle, and it does not matter if you are straight or gay.
Because the happiest time is when you desire and long for each other.
That should always be the basis of society, not getting off.

Also , sex works like a drug. Love and the compassion and hugging works as a counter balance to counter the addictive effects of sex.
People having sex just for sex will never have enough and will get more extreme over time. Not just because the body refills semen for the man or make the woman ovulate, it is also a brain thing.