Sex is a human right

[Fraggling]

It's time for another article about why men with disabilities must be given women to fuck.

I am sick of this.

This one guess further. One person says paying for sex should be a choice, but not the only one (no elaboration what they mean by that).

A man says that it can be easily argued that sex is a human right.

Shocker yet again features zero disabled women chatting about how important it is that they can choose men to pay to go down on them.

The tone of this is very positive. Suggests men with disabilities be given women to fuck on the nhs (presumably men as well if that's their preference but yet again, strangely, only women who are paid are interviewed).

Logical end point of sex as a human right is that men who can't get laid for whatever reason be given women to fuck.

Mens sexual rights presented as human rights / progressive.

There also weirdly seems be a message that people without disabilities are being mean by not having sex with disabled men.

Oh and a cry for 'sexual equality' yes you heard that right.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-hampshire-48875001/disabled-sex-escorts-should-be-a-choice-not-the-only-option

'Furthermore, in the case of the disabled, who have no earned income,'

Bit sweeping, that!

You're going to wear the wheels out on your goalposts at this rate :D

No one but no one thinks that radical feminists have been at the forefront of advocating that governments provide people for other people to fuck.

I mean come off it.

Your links were bollocks, you're changing your argument every time anyone points it you're talking cobblers.

The idea that men must be given women and girls to ejaculate into because of feminists is utterly ludicrous.

The main theme for feminists and in fact women and girls all over the world since forever is wanting the right to say no.

'Well you have to go to the 80s. At the time, the feminist movement was struggling to justify & defend unfettered access to free contraception and abortion as a type of healthcare.'

I don't remember this? At all.

Unfettered is an interesting word. We've never had 'unfettered ' access to abortion here in uk, i don't think anywhere in the world has or on demand at any point.

Come on, you need to do better than this.

Feminists use FGM as 'window dressing' to advance their core argument, which is that we want to sexually control men, use them for our pleasure on demand...

Hmmm interesting.

@Krisskrosskiss
Exactly, you have hit on why this is so dangerous and it’s largely because of sex work.
Studies have shown that demand always outstrips voluntary supply in countries that legalise sex work. This results in illegal sex trafficking of mostly women and girls. These initiatives actually increase this demand by literally channeling government funds (tax payer money) to buy sex.
I mean come on! Think the defence industry is bad for milking the government to stay in business, well this takes the cake imho.
I actually think selling sex should be illegal. To me you cannot sell a human beings body as a commodity for any amount of time (selling for life is slavery).

No, buying sees should be illegal.

Hth.

Sex not sees

"Y'a'll" - are you American Angela?

@fraggling
You insist on deliberately misrepresenting me so there is no point discussing anything with you. You keep saying I said x or y, when I never said that. Even the unfettered access to contraception you’ve cut and paste and somehow made it into unfettered access to abortion.
I mean come on.

You're not allowed to ask that

'Love your attempt at ethnic profiling btw. Doesn’t come across as bigoted at all.'

You're a bigot.

I'm interested in this 'Well you have to go to the 80s. At the time, the feminist movement was struggling to justify & defend unfettered access to free contraception and abortion as a type of healthcare.'

I don't remember this at all. Even though it's being presented in this teacher like voice.

That's what you wrote?

Maybe write more clearly?

Give me some links that back up what you are saying the feminist movement was struggling with in the 80s here in the uk as i really don't remember this.

And that their response was to say that women should be provided with men to fuck whether the men liked it or not.

@fraggling
Well you wouldn’t remember the 80s would you? Given your horror of reading books & demands that I be your personal google service you were probably born in the 90s and grew up reading online.

I thought this was about a man with no arms needing a helping ✋..😂

@Jupiter13 this link is only for you.

www.humpus.com/male-humpus/

What do you mean i probably don't regimen her the 80s lol what on earth?
I was merrily taking advantage of free easily available contraception in the 80s :D

Give me the proof that showed that in the uk in the 80s 'feminist movement was struggling to justify & defend unfettered access to free contraception and abortion as a type of healthcare.'

???

The onus is on you to substantiate these claims.

Jupiter, you can do it if you're worried about this theoretical bloke.

Me.
I remember the 80s and i don't remember that
Other.
No you don't!
??

So basically AngelasAshes made a load of claims and stated they were supported by some linked articles, only turns out they totally misrepresented those articles and nothing they claimed was in them... so they then said ‘ read this book’ 😐 with no quotes or anything to support the initial claims about feminists... at all... so when it’s all pointed out, they get aggressive and rude to the OP for correctly pointing out flaws in their argument.

Well it is the weekend!

More or less, Jessica. I gave up after my first attempt to understand.

No idea what you’re on about, Angela, so I’ll just leave it at that.

I’m unlikely ever to be brought round to the concept of sex as a human right, and as I actively campaign against any attempts to legitimise prostitution, I’m very clear that that also includes any argument for special provision of prostituted women for for disabled men (or disabled women, should any argument be made in that direction, which funnily enough it never is).

To be fair the first list of sources I posted was the book listed first and then some articles. Unfortunately readers mistakenly thought my link to a review of the book was the source rather than the book itself. So from the beginning I have listed the book as my chief source.

I also said I am looking forward to a new book “right to sex” coming out next year which also addresses how we got from women’s right to have sex for non procreation (pleasure) to it being a human right to purchasing sex for the disabled. It is updated to discuss incels and prostitution etc.

Yes, I admit I posted one rude comment at the end but only after pp (mostly fraggle) were extremely rude & aggressive to me for several posts running. Many “calling me outs” were pp cut and pasting bits to make up things I never actually said and wilfully misrepresenting my comments and having the cheek to ask for a page number and quotation to support their fabrication!

I’d much rather discuss the issues that are interconnected to and part of this but it seems all you lot want to do is vent a bunch of outrage and blame men.

There are two types of rights: ‘rights from’ and ‘rights to’.

‘Rights from’ have always been a part of society’s moral contract with individuals (in a ‘civilised society’.

You have a right not to be assaulted, not to be robbed, not to have your property invaded etc. These were the original rights enshrined in the US constitution.

Once you start the idea of having a ‘right to’, things become more vexed as having a right to something invariably means taking that thing (whether it is money, food, sex) from someone else and thus trampling over their ‘rights from’.

Clearly we don’t want people starving or homeless in a modern society but we should be very careful when talking about ‘rights to’ and (IMO) keep them to a minimum.

Ignoring the somewhat weird and inaccurate tangent (of course NHS contraception was available in the 80s, and indeed 70s), this is a topic which surfaces every so often from the hard-of- thinking end of the pimp/punter lobby.

Insofar as human rights can be construed broadly to include rights to things rather than freedom from things*, you can I think argue that human beings should have the right to pursue consensual sex and engage in consensual sex in private without interference from the state or religion. But that right to pursue the possibility of consensual sex is totally different from a purported right to get sex given that it's possible that no-one in the whole world chooses to respond to your efforts to get them to have sex with you.

• I thought the post way back on page one was very interesting - and I like the distinction between positive and negative rights as a concept. I don't think I agree, in that I think rights are a (very useful) social construct, and it's possible to argue that there are "rights" (like the right for everyone to be fed, housed or educated) which, even though they come at some cost to society as a whole and its members via taxation, are so important to a civilized society that they're worthy of the title "rights".

Cross posted with Larry - broadly agree that you (collective, social contract you) try to keep the "positive rights" to a smallish, important set round which you can generate a social consensus (and "the right to have one's penis handled by a stranger" clearly isn't in that set, whether in a sexual or a waxing context).

Sex can’t be a human right. Human rights can be enforced. You can’t enforce consensual sex.