Ruth Institute Blog

Sex is not a human right. Pursuit of sex is, but actually getting any requires consent of a second party.

Like happiness. There’s no guarantee you’ll be happy, but you have the right to pursue it.

While I see this going on a whole weird there are exceptions to everything path. It’s generally covered by the consent needed route. At least the sex thing is. Happiness is a whole other ball field, as one persons happiness can directly interfere with another. Sex is easier then happiness.

And to what extent is the government expected to sanction and pay for the pursuit if the pursuit is a fundamental right? You seem to be arguing not only for legal prostitution but also for its public subsidy as a health benefit. Abandon traditional morality as irrational and society will evolve in all sorts of directions, apparently to be driven by a brave new economic marketplace and newly minted rights.

……..I’d argue the government isn’t required, just like it’s not required to help anyones pursuit of happiness. The government isn’t to provide, it’s to protect.

So government isn’t required to subsidize prostitution (as in the case at hand) just protect it?

…It is the worlds oldest profession Leo.

Good god, I actually half agree with this post, in that it’s not the governments place to insure someone gets laid, and you want to do a freaking square dance around what the governments place is in everything. -_- and I thought I was purposefully argumentative at times. Thanks for one-upping me there.

Nerdygirl, you and I have discussed your concept of consent. The key is not the bald assertion of consent but rather that to which consent is given.

When it comes to the pursuit of sex, well, societal regard can take the form of no consent (i.e. disapprobation and possibly criminalization), tolerance (i.e. indifference), protection (i.e. concerns for certain vulnerabilities), or preference (i.e. endorsement and approbation).

Legitimate governing authorities serve society, not the other way around, and perhaps that may be where you intuitively “half-agree” with the post? Consent is not a trump card.

Uh, or consent isn’t actually present in this discussion. Humans have the right to pursue sex, but sex is not a guarantee because it requires consent. Humans have the right to pursue happiness, but happiness is not a guarantee. The government has no place in insuring people get laid or are happy.

In matters of sex, consent trumps.

You said that consent is not present in this discussion but you concluded that consent trumps in matters of sexual conduct.

Consent does not trump some forms of sexual conduct. You and I discussed your concept of consent which is rather superficial and changeable so perhaps you are not quite sure what you meant by “consent trumps”.

The flip side of this is the case in Germany where the unemployment office told a women that she would either become a prostitute (it’s legal there, and a legitimate form of employment) or lose her benefits.

nerdygirl :
The question here is: should the taxpayers have to foot the bill? We help the disabled eat and get to work in this country because ultimately it is better for society that we do so (it helps keep them out of trouble, reduces crime, and increases the tax base). It’s also part of a general public philanthropy that comes from our Christian heritage (and which the socialists hijack, but that’s another topic). Now, given that the Dutch have totally surrendered their moral sense and acknowledge no public morality whatsoever, this decision actually makes sense. According to their logic, a it is the government’s role to enable a disabled individual to do anything that a non-disabled person can, and since unrestricted sex is legal it should be funded for the disabled from the public purse. I would be interested in finding out if Amsterdam also provides this service for the poor, or merely the handicapped.

So, the question is: is it necessary for the government (that is, us the taxpayers) to fund all legal activities for all people that cannot do them on their own nickle?