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...

What a strange post hiddenmnetter. What are or are not 'human rights' is not equivalent to your opinion. You can disagree that education is or not a human right (!) but it is for sure a right (and a duty).
The concept of right (unless you are talking about some divine/naturalistic conception of rights, imply the existence of a law, a legal claim that can be brought before the courts or another third party to make it effective.
As you surely know, in most countries of the world you have the right to education (at least primary, which means for free). And in many, like the UK, is not only a right but a duty. This is the legal system. If you want to deny it exist or call it something different from human rights, it is up to you.

The right to 'sex' does not exist. Definitely not in the UK. What exists is the right to privacy and family life. (since the Human Rights Act, the UK has been very late among European countries recognizing this right). So, in principle (unless it interferes with other rights and limits are acceptable) you can have sex how and with whoever you want to in private. And the State cannot interfere on this.

Nobody can go to a Court claiming the State must provide access to sex (reminder: human rights are claims against the State, not against other individuals).

So No: I have not heard the programme and have no idea about the 'basis' for the claim that there is such thing as the right to sex. As it stands now, neither international/regional human rights regime, nor domestic law recognise such a right.

@camaleon

I disagree- I am arguing from the point of naturalistic rights, but that is precisely what we mean when we refer to ‘human’ rights as opposed to social obligations and duties- rights that we hold irrespective of social or legal custom. I have a right, a human right, to bodily integrity. I have the right not to have my freedom interfered with, due simply to being a human being. This right is respected through legal and social custom in a number of ways (laws against murder, kidnap, rape, violence, etc.)

There are of course other rights that our society bestows upon us- I have, as a British citizen, a right to an education. That could be rescinded however- we have political processes by which free universal education or healthcare, for instance, could be removed. This is fundamentally a political issue- I have no right qua human to claim healthcare or education. I do have a right, irrespective of laws or customs, to claim freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and the like.

What I am suggesting is that the two are often conflated in discourse; and that they need to be clearly and carefully delineated. That delineation, I am further suggesting, is along the lines of rights to be free, and rights to be provided with things. The first are rights we ought to accord all people, irrespective of their social station, migration status, economic situation and the like. The second are provided on the basis of social and political agreement- by custom we provide universal free at point of use healthcare.

The point of this delineation is to help us identify just and unjust laws- a law that restricts my freedom from state interference is an unjust law precisely because it interferes with human rights. A law that restricts social or economic rights is not, in itself, unjust, although we do by custom agree that providing education and healthcare is a good and just thing.

Another Aaaaarrrgh from me.

I heard that segment this morning. I’m staying in a hotel, otherwise I’d have done some violence to the radio.

I’ve been single for almost ever. I don’t do one night stands or FWB. I dare not count the decades since I e had sex.

But it’s not my “human right” for someone to be required to have sex with me. I’m not entitled. And I hate living in a rape culture.

I just accept that, for whatever reasons, I’m unfuckable. People should just have to suck it up, not go in a serious national radio programme about serious politics and claim that sex with someone is their human right.

You are giving your opinion of what human rights should be according to you and your very particular 'naturalistic' approach to human rights. According to you, there are rights that don't need positive action. I don't know any. All of them need at the very least a system of adjudication that is extremely expensive.

For States 'not to interfere' with your body autonomy (whatever that means, it could mean your right to access paid sex depending on your naturalistic perception of rights) positive actions and lots of money is needed. You cannot stop the State from torturing people if the only way of proving a crime is confession. You must have forensic evidence, doctor's examination, access to a judge, etc. Otherwise, torture will happen as a necessary means to investigate crime.

I am not engaging with your personal view of what human rights are. At the moment there is a right to education recognised at international level, the Human Rights Act and tones of UK regulations. Not by custom, by laws: e.g. www.loc.gov/law/help/constitutional-right-to-an-education/englandandwales.php

The right to education is probably the least contested of all rights worldwide. You could hardly find another example that is supported that much.

There is no right to have sex as explained. No legislation (human rights are not unicorns, but things we recognised in laws and therefore, yes, mutable) provides right to get sex from the State.

I agree that this is the logical consequence of other ideas people have accepted. One is that many people have an idea, often poorly articulated, that all adults who want to should be able to have a sex life and it is in fact unhealthy to suppress this. Usually they see this in terms of the sexual revolution and freeing us all from prudish ideas.

But what hiddenmnetter said above also seems very relevant, especially in terms of people making policy decisions. We have accepted the idea of positive rights, even in relation to natural processes. Someone mentioned do we now have a light to children, but that is a question that comes up in terms of does the state pay for IFV or other fertility treatments? This can be thought of in terms of fixing fertility problems which is a health issue, but it's also very often talked about in terms of a right to have kids.

You are giving your opinion of what human rights should be according to you and your very particular 'naturalistic' approach to human rights.

You also are giving your opinion.

It's fairly common when we talk about human rights, I would almost say ubiquitous, to talk in terms of natural rights. As a citizen I have a right to vote in my country, but that's not a human right, or I might have a right to social housing. Freedom of movement within my country. Those are limited however.

We say that human rights are universal on the basis that they are seen as naturalistic. So all nations should respect them, they are inherent in our humanity. To be free from torture, to be treated with dignity, these are inalienable only from a naturalistic PPOV.

There are no rights that are not 'positive rights'. The IFV example is particular to some countries and you would be hardwired to articulate it as a 'human right'; It is still linked to the 'right to a family' that must be protected by the state and it is therefore recognised as a human rights. It normally means no intrusive incursion from the State ( e.g. the State cannot separate you from your children at random, for instance, to reorganise resources better across the country). It is a very disputed right precisely because the right to privacy in the family has an impact on maintaining patriarchal structures and hiding abuse.

You can make an argument that 'a right to sex' should exist and, even more, it should be articulated as a human right that you can claim from the State (the main difference from other legal entitlement and human rights). I cannot see this happening. I will listen to the programme later, but I can't see the relevance of the discussion within a human rights context.

It's supposed to be sexuality that's a right - not sex. Adults have a right to be sexual beings, that doesn't mean that they have a right to have sex with anyone else.

I am not giving my opinion at all. I am explaining current legislation and what is considered, within the legislation, a human rights.
A 'natural law' approach to human rights involves all religious/ethical/philosophical options can be disputed from very different perspectives with different outcome. Actually, it is not that long ago that husbands had the right to have sex with their wives. And you would have been unable to challenge non-consensual sex within the marriage.

From a 'natural law' perspective you can argue that your 'right' to body autonomy includes the right to have sex. You can argue anything on those basis.
What you cannot say is that some rights don't need positive actions and that civil and political rights are therefore 'natural' and economic, social and cultural rights are not. As if voting (which is a human right, by the way) was somehow more 'natural law' than eating.

Human beings have the right to have their sexual practices not interfered with by the State unless there are good grounds for it (e.g. age, intelectual disability, etc). There is no right to be a 'sexual being'.

By the way, from a 'naturalistic' point of view you can justify torture all the way. For instance, 'in self-defence': if you torture a kidnapper you find out where a child whose life is at risk is hidden (real famous case in Germany). Only the existence of rules about this, can let you conclude that torture is, in fact, prohibited with no exceptions.

I look forward to the earnest NICE discussions about:

the number of QUALYs this would represent;
guidelines stipulating who would qualify for this (social care?) intervention;
how much sex;
the variety of sex (pre-vanilla; vanilla; something a little more; access to non-judgmental, non-kink shaming activities);
the anticipated lifetime horizon for this intervention;
is there an age of entitlement;
who does the hiring;
what is the quality control.

I'm imagining the postcode lottery stories in the media...

"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 seems a neutral shift until applied over the social frame of male supremacy.

When one class (male) has dominated another class (female) as thoroughly in all social structures as males have, prioritizing "freedom to" benefits the rulers much more than it benefits the servants who need "freedom from" the ruling class's exploitations, intrusions, and oppressions.

This is why we need to separate pate(riarchy) and state.

Of course any position can be twisted, but at least a natural law position has the advantage that it appeals to a universal notion of being human; I.e.: it retains an ontological foundation from which to argue.

Positivism by contrast grants and removes rights with the passage of law. And also positivism removes the common intelligibility of rights anyway- if a right is whatever is enshrined in law, then there is no grounds to argue for things that do not yet exist in law as a right. In fact, arguing that a husband does NOT have a right to sex with his wife is based on an appeal to the right to bodily integrity which all people can appeal to and recognise.

By the same standard, you claimed that a right to vote is a human right: if a country does not have laws enshrining this, on what basis is it a right? I can agree from a natural law position that people have a right to self-determination, but if no law exists within a valid authority for electoral processes, how does that right exist as a human right- I.e.: regardless of law or custom?

So your universal standards of human beings exclude socio-economic rights such as food.
And the example of the wife and husband, was a direct consequence of respecting privacy (State not interfering).
A natural law approach to human rights does not imply that only 'freedoms' are respected. There is no 'freedom' that can be respected without positive obligations and rights to bring before the State. Not a single one.
If 'no law' exists, there are no 'rights' as such. You have the power of force or the authority of religion/something similar. No rights as we understand them and no 'human rights' as a legal claim before states.

Your 'universal' understanding of human rights is not universal at all and deeply anchored (although outdated) in Anglo-American tradition/philosophy

Well.. I said outdated, but the truth is that one of the latest initiative of the Trump administration is to 'go back' to natural rights. They launched a panel on this in June and it is really bad news.

I heard this and was agog. I was feeling my toddler and it was 6:50am! Talk of sex workers on the NHS?!

^FEEDING

Thank you for your posts on positive rights vs restrictions to positive rights @hiddenmnetter. I’d never thought of it from that perspective before. Really interesting food for thought.

When one class (male) has dominated another class (female) as thoroughly in all social structures as males have, prioritizing "freedom to" benefits the rulers much more than it benefits the servants who need "freedom from" the ruling class's exploitations, intrusions, and oppressions.

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty argued that before we can exercise our “freedom to” we need “freedom from”. That is, our freedom to learn, for example, can only be exercised if we are free from starvation or homelessness or violence or whatever.

It’s another reason to admire him.

this is why prostitution exists. Because by natural law only some men would get to have sex. women are naturally discriminate with sexual partners because we bear the burden of childbearing- you can die giving birth. Also diseases are easily passed from men to women. So women have a lot to lose by not being picky.

So a lot of violence is used to create a subclass of women who are sexually accessible to all men. Men think this is fair and just even though it violates natural law

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Australia recently ruled that the state funded disability insurance fund could in some cases fund sex workers. It was a woman who argued and was funded.

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-11/ndis-to-pay-for-sex-therapist-after-landmark-ruling/11298838

Local disabilty groups are almost all run by people who believe that pwd have a right to sex and that where disabilty is a barrier the state should fund sex workers (prostituted women and men). It can get ugly when someone points out that disabled women are often pushed into this 'industry' and that disabilty organisations should maybe be helping those people.

It's terrifying that the narrative of a right to sex has made it mainstream. I'm horrified that my children and their peers are seeing these attitudes and beliefs published in the mainstream newspapers and concerned that it's only a short time before I hear of a school class being asked to use articles like the one linked in a debate or ethics class.

I posted a Guardian AU article a few weeks back, where disability advocates were arguing that NDIS funding should be provided for monthy visits to sex workers, on the basis that 'sex is a human right'. Pretty sure the majority of commenters agreed.

With regards to disability - and specifically people with profound disabilities living in institutions - the right to be a sexual being has merit. It comes from the background of people in these settings being effectively punished for showing any signs of not being asexual (masturbating for example), not being given privacy (multiple occupancy/ dorm rooms then later double rooms, door stays open, bathroom door left open etc).

It shouldn't be rights to anyone else's body in any way, but rights to their own bodies and to form sexual relationships with genuinely consenting equal peers where both parties are enthusiastic about doing so.

Where I live disabled adults didn't have those rights until recently, which is where my right to be a sexual being comment came from.

It's too rapidly gone from a repressive attitude to one in which active assistance from "specialists" is discussed as potentially a human right - which in some areas means prostitution - which is mad overcompensating for sins of the past I suspect, but overshoots the correct balance and creates another, different unsafe situation IMO. It also ignores the fact that some of the most severely disabled adults are still living in double rooms with one bathroom between ten in institutions ... There's a rush to over provide for those with a strong, articulate voice and ignore those without.