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?

Do you have a link Michelle?

No. They put the care order in place because they wanted to prevent him acting in anti social ways.

They went to court because he insisted he wanted a girlfriend, a full sexual relationship, private and family life.

They had little choice becuase he is one of the very many whose mental competence is on the legal borderline. They had little choice as they were, as the judge said, breeching his rights as a human being. It isn't about him having the right to have sex, the words 'right to' get a bit misapplied/misinterpreted by media in such circumstances. It is about him having as much right to want to have sex as anyone else!

The law is clear. He has the right to seek full sexual relationships. But he does not have competence to understand the concept of consent. But he has committed no crime, nor has he been accused of any. He has been observed by carers acting inappropriately. He is a real legal conundrum! And the LA have recognised this... hence the case, the ruling and the appeal!

@WellButterMyArse it was put into one of the other threads on this. I'll try and find it...

Found it

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2019/39.html

I think the judgement link is on the FWR thread about this?

Crosspost.

I had noticed that we are both wrangling with this across a couple of posts

Thanks

This is complex.

On the face of it, the statement that a man has a fundamental right to have sex suggests that any man should be allowed to have sex with whom so ever they want. But in this case that statement is far too simplistic.

This man doesn’t just want to have sex, he wants to be able to have a loving relationship. Do we really as a society really think that it is right to deny someone the right to a relationship purely because they have learning difficulties? Because that is essentially what this is saying.

Because if you say that he doesn’t have the right to pursue a sexual relationship then you are essentially saying that he doesn’t have the right to a personal relationship since this will need to be policed and if at any point he and his girlfriend want to consentually have sex they should be prevented from doing so. Bearing in mind that you are potentially also taking away the right of the woman in this potential scenario to give consent.

Now, in general I do not believe that sex is a fundamental human right. And neither do I support someone’s wish to have sex with prostitutes purely because they say their disability prevents them from having a sex life. But I think that to go down the route of telling someone they are not allowed to have sex,even though that sex could be consensual purely because they won’t understand that it’s consensual is a slippery slope.