AIBU to think that nobody has a "fundamental right to sex"?

[ArcheryAnnie]

I keep on seeing arguments coming up, again and again, that it's wrong to "deny" lonely straight men sex, as if women are just resources to be handed out to the men who "need" their services.

I see it from incels, of course, but also from pansesexual men, who claim that pansexuality is the only moral sexuality, because to be gay or straight, and thus reject people as potential sexual partners because they are the sex you don't fancy, is "immoral". I've also seen it in some arguments that disabled men should be given access to women who work as prostitutes. (I think this is abelist as it implies disabled people are so inherently unsexy they could never attract a willing partner. And yet somehow I never seen arguments saying disabled women should be provided with gigolos. I wonder why that is?)

Now there's a court case www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/03/man-who-does-not-understand-consent-has-right-to-pursue-sex-court-rules where the judge has ruled that a man whose cognitive disabilities make him a "moderate risk" of sexual offending agaist women, and particularly vulnerable women, as he does not and cannot understand consent, must be allowed the circumstances to pursue sexual relationships, as he has a "fundamental right to sex".

I don't believe anyone has a "fundamental right to sex" because partnered sex involves, well, a partner, and women also have a fundamental right not to be used as a cum dump by men on demand. Blue balls never killed anyone.

I also think this ruling is unfair on the man, who may end up in jail, very vulnerable, if (or more likely, when) he sexually assaults someone. And if he doesn't end up in jail because he is ruled not to have capacity, it'll be utterly unfair on his victims, who will not see justice done. I can't see any good outcome here.

AIBU to think this is a very dangerous ruling by the judge?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3707893-Man-who-does-not-understand-consent-has-right-to-pursue-sex-court-rules

Well that ruling sounds utterly horrific. Are they putting any safeguards in place at all? (How even could you safeguard that, short of somebody in the room policing if the poor woman says stop he does)?

I see it from incels, of course, but also from pansesexual men, who claim that pansexuality is the only moral sexuality, because to be gay or straight, and thus reject people as potential sexual partners because they are the sex you don't fancy, is "immoral" excellent. The "pansexual" my arse men can convert the incels and they can all have happy sex together.

Ah, thanks! I did scroll down a bit before posting but did not see it.

coffeeandchocolate from what I can understand in the article, the court ruling is about removing the current safeguards, which were put in place because of this man's existing behaviour towards women.

The thing that terrifies me is that his most likely chance of a relationship of any sort (because of circumstance) will be with someone who also has a cognitive disability, and who will therefore also most likely be very vulnerable and lack the capacity to defend herself against unwanted anything.

I see this as two different arguments though.

Everyone has a right to be allowed to have sex. i.e. you can't stop someone from pursuing sex or trying to get sex so long as it is consensually given. The judge is saying that, even though the man doesn't understand consent, he still has a right to a consensual relationship if he can find one. The judge isn't saying he has the right to rape or assault anyone, just that they can't deny him the right to pursue sex by consensual means.

Incels say they have a right to sex, even if it means raping women to get it. That women are just objects and sex is their only value.

I've not heard the pansexual thing. I personally think it's immoral to be a homophobe so....

I commented on a thread yesterday that no one has the right to a sex life, we don't have rights over other people's bodies and saying that sex is a right implies that it is something that should be available on demand/as needed.

I got a very angry response from the male PP I'd responded to asking me why do I hate people having a sex life, is it because my own is crap, well that's my problem not theirs.

When it comes to these types of men any opinion women have is a personal attack.

Hulks I think the difficulty is that he has the right to pursue something with consent but not the capacity to gain that consent. It helps nobody, me included, if you give me the keys to a ferrari if my eyesight is too poor to drive at all. I might well get in the car anyway and end up hurting people, including myself.

We do all have a right to have sex. We do not have a right to have sex with someone who does not consent, and the judge was not suggesting that this man does.

It's a terribly complex case and I don't know what the best answer is. I don't think anyone should be deprived of their liberty without good reason, and a blanket ban on allowing this man to have a relationship would be unduly restrictive.

Note that this case also has implications for women, it applies to all who lack capacity on this issue.

The right to persue sex by consensual means sounds dodgy as fuck to me as potentially one persons the mans definition of "pursue" can very easily be experienced by the other person woman as pressure, stalking or coercion. As a pp said who is going to police the liaison to ensure there is real consent?

I completely disagree and it always interests me as that most of the time the pursuing party in these scenarios is a man.

So YANBU.

ArcheryAnnie That's not what I understood. I read it it as he doesn't understand whether or not consent has been given because he lacks appropriate social inhibition.

End of day, while he's been socially inappropriate he hasn't committed a crime and you can't punish someone for a crime they haven't committed.

So it's more, not allowing someone to get a driver's license because they said they like to drive fast.

Archery, your driving example is flawed. He may meet a woman who does consent, in which case his lack of capacity would not be an issue.

It may be appropriate for him to have sex with a sex worker. But my understanding is that the reason for the case is that he wants a full, loving relationship.

A very complex issue.

Just to clarify...my last comment was meant when you generally hear "sex is my human right" and not the specific case referenced by OP.

I got a very angry response from the male PP I'd responded to asking me why do I hate people having a sex life, is it because my own is crap, well that's my problem not theirs.

I got an equally splenetic one just before you.

I think the delightful Rachel McKinnon was recently pushing the view that pansexuality was the only “moral”/valid sexuality.

People don't have the right to sex no, yanbu. I read that article this morning, the ruling certainly sounds concerning but I also dont necessarily trust the press to report accurately on issues like this either. I'd be interested to read the judgment. If it is as reported then I think something has gone wrong somewhere, be it the judge or the law they were obliged to apply

Jesus Christ, that's frightening. She (the judge) said not having that knowledge might result in criminal prosecution but JB was “entitled to make the same mistakes which all human beings can, and do, make in the course of a lifetime, in the context of committing sexual abuse against women because he fundamentally doesn't understand consent. So the judge is saying he is entitled, ENTITLED, to potentially sexually abuse a woman, because he is entitled to "make mistakes". So, fuck the fact that this would more than likely destroy the woman's life, as long as this man gets sex, everything's ok.

This is so utterly horrific.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3707853-Mans-right-to-have-sex-is-more-important-than-vulnerable-womens-right-to-safety?msgid=90530460#90530460

The judge said that insisting that JB understands the issue of consent before being allowed to pursue sexual relationships would be discrimination because it would “impose on him a burden which a capacitous individual may not share”.

To me the statement from the judge suggests that she believes people with mental capacity don't understand consent so therefore it's unfair to expect the person in question to have a higher standard ie understand the concept of consent. I think that statement is very flawed.

You've mixed up two different things.

One is the right to sex and sexuality which is a negative right and has to do with not being prevented from exercising this right. Historically, different societies have prevented different groups of people from having sex, e.g. the enforced sterilisation and castration of blacks, gypsies, aboriginal peoples, gay and lesbians, trangender people, ethnic minorities, mentally ill people and disabled people. The right to sex is part of legal codes to ensure this doesn't happen again, that doctors, institutions and governments do not prevent people or groups of people from having sex which is a fundamental expression of human nature.

However, there is no corresponding duty to provide one with someone to have sex with. This is an entirely different point. Incels saying they have a right to be provided with someone to have sex with are making a, very obvious, mistake. Not too sure what the point of repeating this mistake here might be.

The court case you cite is not about a duty to provide the person with someone to have sex with as in the Incel case. It's about not preventing them from having sex, in the same way that no one else is prevented from having sex. If he can't find anyone to have sex with, then that's his problem. If he has sex with someone who doesn't consent then he will be prosecuted, just like someone else who does the same.

k1233 the judge is saying that we don't expect individuals with capacity to demonstrate they understand consent before allowing them to have it, so it is unfair to impose this standard upon this man. Either expect everyone to demonstrate understanding of consent before sex, or no one, because in the eyes of the law everyone is equal.

The judge said that insisting that JB understands the issue of consent before being allowed to pursue sexual relationships would be discrimination because it would “impose on him a burden which a capacitous individual may not share”.

Surely “capacitous” individuals who don’t “understand” consent end up doing time for rape?

Cross posted with @Booboostwo

It’s gonna end in tears, and probably not JB’s.

@YouJustDoYou

EXACTLY. This is the really terrifying part of the reasoning behind the ruling.

It IS a complex case, and as a parent of a son with ASD I have huge sympathy. But it is simply not ok to knowingly place women at a very high risk of sexual assault (because he doesn’t understand that he needs consent), which they then have to deal with the aftermath of for the testing of their lives, plus it then likely puts him in prison, criminalising a vulnerable adult who is not able to prevent himself from committing the crime.

It also puts ENORMOUS pressure on the residential staff at his home to somehow almost police him themselves to prevent him committing a crime and protecting potentially vulnerable women. And as a PP said, unless he’s going to pay for sex workers (which is not what he is hoping for) in all likelihood any girlfriends he may have will likely be vulnerable in their own right as well.

It's harder to argue against removing the freedom to have sex than it is to argue it's a right as right seems to imply that consent is secondary to that right.

So should unsanctioned people be free to have sex? Of course they should

Should the individual in this case be sanctioned? That's another question entirely