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?

It seems to me like this person was locked up or had his freedom of movement restricted somehow for a crime he hasn't actually committed. Perhaps he can learn consent, or at least rules around it with support. I definitely don't agree that everyone has a fundamental right to sex but it seems like some of his other rights had been taken away in an unlawful manner.

@Butchyrestingface

If he commits a crime, then he will also be a victim in my opinion. Because he does not have the capacity to understand consent. He will not understand at all what or why he has done wrong or why he is being locked up. He is an extremely vulnerable man who lives in residential care. How well do you think he will cope in prison? How much more restricted will his life become when he is a registered sex offender? It is the duty of those around him to protect him (and those around him) from this situation occurring. They have been doing that, but now the court had basically said to stop protecting him and those around him. That is a failing him and everyone else.

Should we be stopping people with learning disabilities from having sex?.if this man finds a partner with similar cognitive abilities how do we know that if either of the people can consent ? It's complex ,as the parent of a child with severe autism and learning disabilities ,it frightens.me as he's very vulnerable and will also be a vulnerable adult

It seems to me like this person was locked up or had his freedom of movement restricted somehow for a crime he hasn't actually committed.

It's not a crime to not have a driving licence, but it's reasonable to prevent people who cannot drive from jumping into a fast car and zooming off. They haven't committed a crime until they zoom off, but it's reasonable to prevent them nonetheless, before they crash into someone.

But my original question was AIBU to think there's no "fundamental right to sex", and whatever the merits of this case, I don't think there is.

Having a right to have sex doesn't mean you get to have sex automatically

People with certain disabilities such as epilepsy can be forced to hand in their driving licence, because they pose a risk to others.
People can be sectioned based on the risk they pose to others, before they have caused harm.

Its only a man's 'right' to sex that is such an emotive issue that it trumps a woman's fundamental right to safety.

Nobody has a right to sex no ,but people with disabilities still have sexual feelings , assuming the man meets someone who has similar needs to him ,should they be stopped from persuing a sexual relationship? I don't know what the answer is because they would both be vulnerable and would either be able to give consent ?

I don't see how you can say that any person has the right to sex... purely because it involves another person, hence if one person theoretically had the right to sex and no one was willing to provide it, it would mean another person's right not to have sex would be removed.

I'm sure it must be awful to be celibate for your entire life if you don't want to be, but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

What a nightmare case. I believe - when it comes down to it - that a person without the capacity to understand consent needs to be protected from pursuing sex because 1) he will otherwise very likely incriminate himself and 2) he is too much of a risk to others to allow him to do so.

The judge is surely wrong.

I do wonder, also, if someone doesn't understand consent, can they give informed consent?

We know from expert witness testimony that he does not and cannot learn to understand consent. The judge's ruling seems to to be that he cannot be prevented from activities that are likely to lead to him breaking the law and y'know, raping a woman

Surely if we change the scenario, an adult with learning disabilities who doesn't understand that running into the road could cause them to be hit by a car, it is reasonable to take steps to prevent him from running into the road, much though it may restrict his right to freedom of movement or expression. We do this with children daily.

If it can be foreseen that his freedom to pursue sex is likely to result in a rape for a woman,and prosecution and punishment for him, surely it is reasonable to restrict his right to pursue sex? The man cannot understand, and cannot learn to understand consent. Putting aside the preventable victim, () how is it fair to him to do nothing to prevent him from committing a crime (and receiving appropriate punishment) that he cannot understand? Surely that is failing him.

that JB cannot understand that a woman’s consent is relevant in sexual situations, nor that attempting sex without consent is likely to be a criminal offence.

I haven’t read the full case, but I don’t think the issue is that he doesn’t understand consent conceptually. It seems to me that it is stated only that he doesn’t understand that women have to consent to sex with him. There is no indication that he doesn’t understand his own right to consent.

If he doesn't have capacity to understand then the issue of punishment following a rape conviction isn't likely to arise. He wont have the mens rea. That still leaves the victim/s though...

WellButterMyArse

I am not sure about that. It doesn’t say he doesn’t understand the concept of consent, just it’s importance. The mens rea requirement for rape is that you had no reasonable belief that the other person was consenting, not that you agreed with the importance of consent.

its

You are right. Nobody has any fundamental right to sex with anybody apart from themselves.

If there were such a right, who is supposed to enable it and what about their own fundamental right not to engage?!

The word used appears to have been understanding not agreement though. I don't necessarily trust the press to report accurately, but nothing in the article suggests this is an issue of him merely not agreeing. It says the judge said he doesn't understand that a woman's consent is relevant.

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?)

Thinking someone's reasons for not having sex with you are 'immoral' is not the same as thinking you have a right to sex. (for example, you might disagree with the person who refuses to have sex outside of marriage, or the woman who says they would never have a ONS as only sluts and slags do things like that, More generally, you might bemoan the 'background factors' that may be causing, for example, gay/bi people to not do anything with the same sex, and none of this is about believing that you or anyone else has a right to have sex with them)

I also don't think that defending the concept of disabled people making use of the services of sex workers is about saying that someone else is obligated to become a sex worker in the first place, in order to be provided to them.

Anyway, if a right to have sex means something analagous to the right to found a family, then people do. This doesn't mean anyone else is obligated to marry them, just means you can't thwart them trying to obtain one with a consenting other party.

Anyway, if a specific individual cannot understand what they would need to do to prevent themselves from committing a serious crime, then it seems that there ought to be something in place, for the protection of others.

Sex is not a right it's a privilege.

WellButterMyArse

Understanding or not understanding the significance of consent is different to understanding or not of the existence of consent. It sounds like he has a problem with the former, and that is no defence if he breaks the law.

That's not the conclusion I drew from the article. Although I don't know why we're talking about rape convictions as being particularly likely in any circumstances anyway, it's not like we do a particularly good job of convicting rapists. Actually I wonder if he vigilante action might not be the most significant risk.

WellButterMyArse

True. I suppose it’s just one of the possible implications among many.

I am pretty shocked by this ruling and have to question who benefits from this kind of decision. Certainly not the vulnerable women that will cross JB's path and face a "moderate" risk of sexual assault. JB himself may well want to have the freedom to pursue a sexual relationship but he isn't equipped with the understanding to do this in a safe and sensible way. He too is a very vulnerable person that is liable to make misjudgements in this area and could well face the legal consequences of such a misjudgment which could well include time in prison.

Reading the judgement, the LA have taken this all the way to court for this one person (when they will work with many, many people in similar situations with similar needs) because of a number of incidents that have already happened.