Right to access
Even Amnesty International stopped short of calling it a right, in fact it explicitly disavowed calling it a right.
Amnesty International has formally adopted a policy calling for the decriminalisation of adult sex work and repeal of most laws around the world controlling prostitution.
The organisation’s stance on protecting sex workers is set out in a global programme published on Thursday that draws on fresh research about the industry in Argentina, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea and Norway.
“This policy does not argue that there is a human right to buy sex or a human right to financially benefit from the sale of sex by another person,” Amnesty said. “Rather, it calls for sex workers to be protected from individuals who seek to exploit and harm them and recognises that the criminalisation of adult consensual sex work interferes with the realisation of the human rights of sex workers.”
Not arguing that there is a human right to buy sex? Well we can do better than that!
The incel’s age-old dream: the right to have sex. The fact that such a right would obliterate the right to refuse sex is neither here nor there.
Alexandra Hunt is running for Congress. Here’s hoping she fails.
I think we have the right to desire sex. But anything that involves consent of other people is not a right in the same way that the right to life is a right. When you look at definitions of what a right is, you discover it is a legally enforceable claim. This should never be established for having sex. Now, I will accept that there might be a right to mutually consensual sex between adults who are capable of consenting. In this case, you are protecting the right of the two people from a third party who would seek to interfere, such as all the old anti-gay laws.
But for someone to have a legally enforceable claim to having sex when they feel they want to? There is no way to enforce this except by taking away the right of the other party to say no. What if a man wants to have sex with Amanda Sayfried? Is she required to consent?
This is nothing short of legalized rape.
While I doubt she means/wants to legalize rape (she does use the word ‘consensual’ in her opening line, after all), it’s pretty clear she hasn’t thought through the ramifications of the language she’s using enough to actually be qualified for office.
And BTW, she did lose, the primary, to a Democratic incumbent, in a district that doesn’t even have a Republican candidate declared for the general election. So yeah, she’s kind of old news. (I went to check because if she was a Dem running against a Republican in a general election, I would’ve pointed out that the party that wants to actually empower rapists is still a worse bet; fortunately, we don’t have to go there, yet.)
We’ve been here a few times before, haven’t we? Peterson’s Enforced Monogamy springs to mind. He insisted all along that “enforced” didn’t mean “enforced” and “monogamy” didn’t necessarily mean “monogamy” and was generally a bit hazy on the details, but all it could possibly have meant was that at least some women wouldn’t have the same right to refuse consent that others (and men) would.
And so we always come back to the question of whether prostitutes can truly consent when they have external pressures like pimps and targets and bills to pay.
How mutually consensual can sex be when one of the parties is economically insecure?
And, of course, there was the argument about how women should be distributed among the incels to take away their pain, but of course, that didn’t really mean distributing women. Of course.
She said “consensual” in the first tweet but then she said “right to sex” in the second one. It’s simply not possible to have a “right to sex” without trampling all over “consensual.”
We have been here before, yes, in particular when Amnesty International said the same thing.
We see that asymmetry everywhere.
Well, you know, ‘people’ have the right to sex, and ‘people’ can choose their sex partners, but we’ve established in at least one previous thread that that noun doesn’t include women.
She has a right to sex already. She just doesn’t have a right to involve anybody else if they don’t want to.
Is she volunteering, though, or is that just for poor women?
Then later she tries to get more specific (in response to someone saying it should be “access to sex” rather than a “right to sex”):
Well, sure, and everyone should be able to have a pony and unlimited ice cream too, right? What a wonderful world it would be!
But of course, it’s all about the menz:
And are you aware of the high rates of depression and suicide with people who don’t have ponies?
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
Lady M, that’s very cogent. Depression often causes lack of interest in sex.
My right to freely swing my arms ends when my fist meets your face.
Unless you’re* a woman** of course.
*or unless I’m a woman, in which case my right to swing my arms ends wherever you*** say it does.
**Sorry, that should be a uterus-haver or ovary-haver. Bepenised individuals are exempt because whaaargharble
***where “you” are a bepenised individual. Because see: **
It reminds me of an old Beetle Bailey comic strip where Sarge tells the soldiers (from memory):
“I need three volunteers. You three will be volunteers!”
Not all reasons for feeling depressed or even suicidal deserve pity or sympathy. If you can’t live without using women’s bodies as your living inflatable dolls, then don’t live. Suicide might just be the answer for you.
Though I am an animal of small Latin and less Greek, I submit:
On the basis of which sex should only be guaranteed to roosters and women.
In that context, what does even _healthy_ sex mean?
I’m sorry if this is clear to everyone, but I’m completely at a loss.
Unless this comes from from equating non-sex with unhealthy?
I think that is what this comes from.
I think the difficulty is that Alexandra Hunt is seriously stupid, so it’s hard to believe she’s saying what she’s saying.