R4 Today - sex is a human right - anyone catch this?

[howonearthdidwegethere]

Woke up halfway through a segment just before 8am. It sounded as if it was about people with disabilities having sex.

Guy interviewed at the end (not sure who he was or which organisation he represented). Said something like "maybe sex is a human right...I mean no, you won't die if you don't have sex..but really?". Laughter.

Will catch up on iPlayer but Christ almighty.

Then after 7am an interview with the very articulate young woman who was raped at Warwick University.

Only connect...

Yes I caught a bit of it. A sex worker who specialises in disabled clients. Seemed rather patronising towards disabled people I thought.

Oh god I hate that. No, sex is not a human right!! It’s a disgusting concept.

I bet it’s only entitled men taking that line. When do you ever hear anyone say that disabled women should have male prostitutes provided to service their needs?
No, sex is not a human right. For either sex. Claiming it is, feeds into rape culture, as OP points out.

I agree it’s a shambles, but that’s because we have moved human rights away from restrictions to positive rights: I.e.: a right to bodily integrity and freedom from incarceration except with due process, is a clear right. I am entitled, by virtue of being a human, and by law, to not have my freedom curtailed except by the state under due process. This covers a multitude of laws like murder, kidnap, rape etc. But it is clear in itself.

Once we moved to positive rights (a right to something as opposed to a right to be free from something) we opened this door. A human right to education, for instance, means that someone, somewhere, is obliged to provide that education. I disagree- there is no human right to education. We have a civil right that we are entitled to education because of our social compact, but there is no inherent right to be educated, because that then means there is someone who is obliged to provide that education, which is a curtailment on their rights.

People may argue that the “state” is the “person” obliged to maintain these rights but it doesn’t make sense, because the state isn’t an actor in the same way people are. The state can’t educate- it can pay or force others to, but it can’t do anything itself, which is why I think the whole notion of the state providing economic services as ‘human rights’ (rather than as part of a social compact) incoherent.

A right to sex would mean that someone is obliged to have sex with you. That’s the logic and it’s inescapable. If it were ever enforced it would mean government paid prostitutes essentially.

When do you ever hear anyone say that disabled women should have male prostitutes provided to service their needs?

Literally never.

really interesting post hiddenmnetter

this to me is trojan horsery

I used to be of the view 'well sure, no one should prevent disabled people from having sex if they want to'

then it became 'disabled people have a right to have sex just like anyone else', and I was a bit more

and it's a hop, skip and a jump to 'sex is a human right, prostitutes for all!'

it's queer theory infiltration again

Once we moved to positive rights (a right to something as opposed to a right to be free from something) we opened this door.

This is true and I’ve never heard it explained that way, thank you.

A right to sex would mean that someone is obliged to have sex with you. That’s the logic and it’s inescapable. If it were ever enforced it would mean government paid prostitutes essentially.

Sex is not and never should be considered a human right. It involves more than one person so shoukd be fully consensual without coercian (including for money). Otherwise the right of one petson is being considered more important than the right of another.

I'd argue instead for bodily autonomy, as far as a person is able, as a 'right'.

No human has the right to force another human to provide for them. Since sex requires more than one participant, this would force someone to do something they don't necessarily want to do; how does this impact that person's human rights?

I think I get it. Men have the right to penetrate women. That's what this really means, doesn't it?

They also talked about it not being illegal to use benefits to pay for visits to 'sex workers'. And the woman interviewed, who provides these 'services', spoke about her hopes that care workers could refer their clients on to receive this 'help.'

If I'm not mistaken, someone also mentioned that the NHS might well prescribe this as a treatment in the future.

They also talked about it not being illegal to use benefits to pay for visits to 'sex workers'. And the woman interviewed, who provides these 'services', spoke about her hopes that care workers could refer their clients on to receive this 'help.'

I used to work for a charity in the early 2000s which employed support workers for people with learning disabilities, brain injuries, etc., and this happened then. I remember a support worker taking a client to Amsterdam for this purpose. Certainly the provision of the support worker was funded by whatever independent living fund was in existence at the time.

WTF tax payers are supposed to pay for prostitutes prescribed by the NHS?

If i didnt know about all the messed up TRA/MRA queer theory stuff i'd laugh and think no way.

It feels like more MRA policy capture, sneaking in a 'right' under the guise of 'helping' disabled people.

Such a 'right' would amount to state endorsed sex offending, and if it goes horribly wrong (which it will) when the backlash comes blame the disabled.

Sick.

It feels like more MRA policy capture, sneaking in a 'right' under the guise of 'helping' disabled people.

It really does. It is insane.

By the same thinking, do women have the right to bear children?

If so, then the right to have sex would be coupled by the responsibility that children might arise from it for which they would be responsible....

A right to sex would mean that someone is obliged to have sex with you. That’s the logic and it’s inescapable.

Exactly right. And of course it only goes one way - it's always about men and their imagined "right" to have sex, never about women.

Julie Bindel has written very well on this, as you might expect.

There was a case a couple of months ago wasn't there, a judge said something along the lines of "A man has the right to sex with his wife." when hearing a case about a woman who did not have the capacity to consent to her husband.

Anyone'd think there was no such thing as wanking.

A human right to education, for instance, means that someone, somewhere, is obliged to provide that education.
A child's parents have that obligation don't they? The social contract is between the parents and the state for the state to do the actual provision.

Here's the link

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-48875001

There was a case a couple of months ago wasn't there, a judge said something along the lines of "A man has the right to sex with his wife." when hearing a case about a woman who did not have the capacity to consent to her husband.

I think the judge's comments were taken massively out of context when the newspapers reported it that way.

No one has a right to sex, the lie that anyone does have this right is what drives the whole concept of sex work being work.

Perhaps it could be argued that people have a right to sexual gratification, ie a right to masturbate?
Or a right to the opportunity to seek a willing sexual partner?

When there is rising foodbank use and homelessness the notion that sex is a human right seems ridiculous and is sick. No one person has the right to have someone have sex with them. Besides why would you want to have sex with someone who was not excited about being with you?