Image from Gretchen Schermerhorn.
So, this Ecuadorian politician named Maria Soledad Vela has tried to write women’s right to sexual pleasure into the nation’s constitution. From what I understand, the law is just about laying the groundwork for public policies that acknowledge that women are sexual agents, not just wombs on feet. And everything that would follow—good education, reproductive rights, etc. Perhaps that’s why so many male politicians are throwing first class hissy fits. One claimed that this meant mandatory orgasm provision. (Oh noes!) Another suggested that the legislation is like life in prison. I had an imagine of a man with a woman strapped spread eagle to his face like a feedbag, but that’s the only way I could really see this as a prison.
From my perspective, the approach is an interesting one. Women’s sexual rights are often created through appeals to equality or privacy, but would it be the worst thing in the world to suggest that part of equality is the equal right to really own your sexuality? The right being established here is one men generally have without question, even when they belong to religious traditions that exert some controls on their sexual expression. The right is simply to feel that your body belongs to you, that you can enjoy the sexual pleasure it can provide as pleasure, not as duty or just in a passive, acted-upon sense. The idea that women are sexual agents powerfully undermines rape culture, because sex is viewed as something engaged in by every party involved, instead of acted upon by one party on another. If men found women’s enthusiasm to be the baseline for engaging in sexual activity, instead of just consent, however reluctantly provided, then there’d be a whole lot less situations where men felt they’d obtained consent that women didn’t really give.
Lest you think the panic on the part of Ecuadorian men is unique to their culture, check out the comments at Salon. The vast majority of them are from men who seem to be brought to full-blown terror at the idea of women really enjoying sex on our own terms. Where these bottom-feeders lurk, I can’t tell you. In my world, most men consider female sexual pleasure a prize highly sought, and getting to witness it regularly doesn’t diminish the appeal at all.
52 Responses to “Moments in severe overreaction”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I had an imagine of a man with a woman strapped spread eagle to his face like a feedbag, but that’s the only way I could really see this as a prison.
I’m reminded of the comic that has a group of people wandering around Paradise, with one saying to another “That’s weird, I’ve stubbed my toe every fifteen minutes since we got here” and the caption read: It takes about 6 hours before people realize they’re in hell.
I don’t understand this animosity towards female sexual pleasure either. It took my ex about one day to figure out that if he worked to get me that first orgasm, then he could lie back and relax while I did everything possible to get a second, up to and including getting him seconds. No one could possibly lose in this scenario, I fail to see why more don’t adopt it.
Well, of course I agree with the sentiment, and she’s certainly getting people talking. But how, exactly, would this work practically? How do you enforce the right to sexual pleasure?
It’s definitely an issue that deserves attention, but I’m not sure that this was the way to do it.
One claimed that this meant mandatory orgasm provision. (Oh noes!)
You snork at the undesirability of this, but have you considered the consequences of your orgasms being provided by the same type of bureaucracy that delivers public health?
Don’t whine on your blog when foreplay is dropped as not being cost effective, when trained specialists head to private provision in pursuit of better pay, and when you’re asked to fill out a quality assurance survey immediately before and after you come.
It seems like a vague, roundabout phrasing that will make it difficult to understand what the legislation means. I’d hate to be a judge trying to interpret this in a real-life case. I support the idea, of course, but the language should really be more precise.
“The right is simply to feel that your body belongs to you, that you can enjoy the sexual pleasure it can provide as pleasure, not as duty or just in a passive, acted-upon sense.”
This is a right, but not one that can or should be legislated.
I don’t get the jump to the negative reaction or the “not understing” the interpretation and how all these guys are worried about enforcement. I don’t know how it works down there, but I can offer an American style interpretation. I’d imagine it goes like, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights not to be infringed upon; and among other rights, like free speech, is that of sexual health and freedom. So no law shall be made or upheld which infringes on women’s freedom of sexuality or endangers women’s reproductive health. That protect the right to birth control abortion, and strikes down stupid shit like bans on sex toys, certain sexual behaviours. We saw our own Supreme court basically enforce these rights with Roe V Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. We have seen the recent court case which struck down the Texas dildo ban. We had Loving vs Virginia. All of these basically put sexual freedom into the same category as freedom of assembly. Whats the big fucking deal?
No one was so stupid as to interpret it as a dictum on anyone to have to give anyone else orgasms like it was some big ass burden.
And shit, I’d sure like to see the law step in in this country and reform sex education. There are some places where you cant even show diagrams of the outside of human genital to students, this is anatomy for Christ’s sake. Knowing your our damn anatomy is a human right too.
and also separation of church & state. arent they all catholic? ands isnt divorce frowned upon?
btw, nice post title.
The right to free speech provided in the Constitution is not “legislated”, either, but protected. Pointless point.
It’s a groundwork for a series of pragmatic policy decisions, including prosecution of rape, reproductive rights, education, and almost certainly ease of divorce. These rights are based in part in the right to sexual autonomy, but people are afraid to say it. I applaud the forthrightness with which she’s opened up the doors. Like Carpenter said, rights are often based in government protections against infringements.
Interesting preposition, tho’ haven’t read it in latin political blog. My sense, it’s random pandering by small politician.
(don’t trust Salon.com. bunch of yahoo. They’ll say anything to get a hit.)
>not just wombs on feet
it seems to me like most of the policies in the US are written as if women are only good for makin’ babies- screw them though if they want decent health care while pregnant, decent maternity leave, decent childcare that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg and don’t want to drop out of the job market.
let’s not even go into the forced birth anti-abortion movement.
*sigh*
what are they going to do when they don’t have women to push around I wonder. they might just have to turn gay- maybe that’s why they’re afraid. oh no wait they’re afraid women will turn gay. oh wait.. umm… shit.
As far as I can tell, my utilitarian views imply that abstinence-based sex ed be replaced with women’s pleasure-based sex ed. We could teach high school boys where the clitoris is and offer them some general principles of enjoyable cunnilingus.
Neil, that is brilliant. My wife would certainly agree. It’s worked for us.
“You snork at the undesirability of this, but have you considered the consequences of your orgasms being provided by the same type of bureaucracy that delivers public health?”
Which agency would that be? OH WAIT, the Republicans block all that.
Neil,
YES! Why isn’t this taught in schools. Every girl I’m friends with or dated… “UGH he didn’t know what he was doing, he still doesn’t”… thankfully my first serious gf taught me good.
Would it be easier to comprehend if we phrased this as ‘The right to not engage in, or even feel obliged to engage in, unpleasurable sex?’
I find it humourous how many idiots choose to define pleasure purely as orgasms or genital pleasure, rather than taking sex as a whole series of events and interactions, all of which can result in various forms of positive and negative experiences, which add up to whether the person finds it a pleasurable activity or not.
Is there somewhere to find the exact text being proposed? I think it’s a reasonable goal, but depending on how exactly it’s phrased in said constitution, it could vary from being too vulnerable to counter-interpretation to hard to enforce.
“Another suggested that the legislation is like life in prison.”
Well, you know, phrasing this idea in terms of a “right” to sexual pleasure must be terribly frightening for those of us who are utterly incapable of providing it…
Now THAT would have been useful.
I was fortunate enough to have an encounter with a girl in college who knew exactly where her g-spot was and knew exactly how to teach me how to find it. My wife and I are both extremely grateful.
… because “front and center” is so difficult?Carpenter has responded to the idiots well, so I won’t address that.
Instead, this story reminds me of an issue that came up in 2005 in Denmark, where diability rights advocates proposed government funding for sexual services (specifically, prostitutes) to be provided to the disabled. Denmark allowed some legal prostitution at the time, and the man leading the charge made his case based on the health and psychological benefits of sex; essentially, he claimed that sexual contact was a right that should be extended to all members of a free and democratic society.
I’ve had a devil of a time digging up truthful reporting on this case. The BBC has a story about the man agitating for the funding, but it’s sort of a “human interest” story, as he comes off as pretty quixotic. But lots of news outlets reported on the proposal as thought it had already been implemented by the Danish government, most of them citing the tabloid Ananova. (Most of the legitimate sources that ran this story have since yanked it, leading me to believe that they got wind that it was a hoax.) As far as I can tell, what was actually going on at the time was that transportation services provided by the government for the disabled honored their requests to be dropped off and picked up at brothels; Ananova probably took this and reported it as the government “paying for the disabled to visit prostitutes”.
Having cleared the air on that: what do people think? I hate to turn this into another debate on legalizing prostitution, but I think it’s an interesting conversation piece for exploring concepts of a right to sex.
If we do get into the “sex work vs. non-sex work” debate again, it’s probably worth noting that caring for the disabled involves lots of menial, unpleasant, uncomfortable tasks. I think it would be dificult to make the case that changing bedpans and giving sponge baths and draining sores is really all that much more pleasant than giving someone a hand job. I’m reminded of a story in the NY Times magazine several years back about a disabled woman debating Peter Singer on the issue of euthanizing severaly disabled infants. She made the statement during the debate that, if someone is in a permanent vegetative state, they ought to have a full-time caregiver hover over them indefinintely. She was a wealthy academic from the South, and she seemed entirely oblivious to the fact that her existence was conditional upon her full-time nurse and assistant attending to her every need, from dusk to dawn. The sense of class privilege oozed off the page. I was grateful that the story didn’t mention the race of the woman’s caregiver; the thought of this rich white Southern woman being attended to by a black slave would have been a little too much to stomach.
My point is that even nominally liberal people in the middle class and upwards seem to have pretty fucked up priorities vis-a-vis what kinds of human degradation are perfectly fine (poor people doing menial work) versus which are completely unacceptable under any circumstances (sex work, euthanizing disabled infants).
It’s like swimming. Anybody who needs more than a basic pointer or two will probably never be very good at it.
As for the “legislation,” I initially thought it ridiculous, but Carpenter makes very good points. I, too, would like to parse the precise wording. I don’t speak Spanish, however.
I had an imagine of a man with a woman strapped spread eagle to his face like a feedbag, but that’s the only way I could really see this as a prison.
Ok, that was hilarious.
Oh. Is it noon already?
*sigh*
Be right back, guys. Gotta go sexxor up my wife.
Such a burden!
Listen to the fiddler play
When he’s playin’ ’til the break of day
Oh me, oh my
Love that country pie!
Raspberry, strawberry, lemon or lime —
What do I care?
Blueberry, apple, cherry, pumpkin and plum —
Call me for dinner, honey, I’ll be there!
Saddle up that big old goose
Tie me on and turn me loose!
Oh me, oh my!
Love that country pie!
I am trying to figure out what is the extent of constitutional rewrite that goes on. It seems pretty fundamental. (tho’ probably we will destroy that country again, during next political upheaval.)
http://colonos.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/constitutional-politics-in-ecuador-correa-and-gutierrez-vs-the-people/
“This assembly with broad powers could reform the legislative, judicial and even the executive branch,” said Correa.
“Let’s move ahead with this assembly to have a real representative democracy.”
Winning the referendum allows Correa to push ahead with initiatives such as ending the lease on a US military base, re-negotiating oil deals and restructuring the national debt.
In the past he has scared foreign investors with threats to stop making debt payments and promised to cut off contact with the International Monetary Fund.
But some economists predict that investors will welcome Correa’s victory, as strengthening the presidency would mean Ecuador’s leader will feel less pressure to maintain his approval ratings by implementing policies such as slashing debt payments and consequently push Ecuadorean bond prices higher.
Volatile politics
Critics of Correa say he is centralising power around himself and could become too powerful.
But Ecuador’s politics are volatile, the country has seen eight presidents in a decade, three of them toppled by public action, and the landscape could change again by September when another election will be held to select 130 members for the assembly.
Lucio Gutierrez, Ecuador’s former president who was toppled from power by massive street demonstrations in 2005, remains a political influence and has vowed to use the 130-member body against Correa.
“I will defeat him in the assembly,” he said on Ecuadorean television after the exit poll result.
Voting is mandatory for Ecuadoreans and Sunday’s turnout appeared as high as for last year’s presidential election.
Correa had staked his political career on the vote, pledging to resign if he failed to win emphatically.”
Would it be easier to comprehend if we phrased this as ‘The right to not engage in, or even feel obliged to engage in, unpleasurable sex?’
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean you have a right to contraception. In fact, you could argue that to protect women from unpleasurable sex, just keep us away from sex altogether by depriving us from birth control.
No, I think that it’s a bold move to suggest that even in sex, women are equal to men and have a right to think of ourselves as sexual agents.
Matt, the right to sexual agency and pleasure doesn’t mean the right to another’s body on demand. Your rights end where mine begin. I think the government could have a role in facilitating sexual skills for the disabled, finding ways to make masturbation and dating more accessible, but the provision of partners seems outside of the bounds of this discussion.
You’d think that Ecuador has more pressing problems than female orgasms. Like not being tortured by right-wing death squads. Having enough food for your children. Being able to choose the number of children. Free public education. Safe housing. Job security.
Matt alludes to class issues and this is germane to the US feminist movement. I still get ticked that all the Whitey Career Women want cheap minority/illegal daycare providers. When one is Paris Hilton, having big O is really tops. When one is working for Paris as a maid, perhaps universal health care is more needful.
It is good that we are all so high on the Maslow hierarchy.
yeah, they need serious political stability and basic macroeconomic policy going before being able to provide more esoteric form of freedom.
currently they are at low intensity conflict with Columbia and FARC. Not to mention under intense US influence. Some bored hedge fund playing with their currency, the entire country’s economic imploded, and nobody can afford eating. Then civil war …
basic stat.
http://www.ecuadorexplorer.com/html/vital_stats.html
* Net migration rate: -8.58 migrant(s) /1,000 population (2004 est)
* Infant mortality rate: 31.97 deaths /1,000 live births
* Life expectancy at birth: 71.89 (male: 69.06; female: 74.86)
* Total fertility rate: 2.99 children born /woman
* HIV/AIDS (adult prevelence rate): .03% (2001 est.)
* Poverty (% of population below national poverty line): 65%
* Child malnutrition (% of children under 5): 45% (2001)
* Access to improved water source: 70% (2001)
* Literacy: 92.5% of the population over 15 years of age (male:94%; female: 91%)
To put a further gloss on Carpenter and Amanda’s response to Kay:
It, in effect, a negative right. (Which is not a bad thing.) In other words, the government doesn’t have to provide it, but they cannot pass laws which lead to people being deprived of that right.
As Amanda points out, free exercise of religion is also a negative right—the government doesn’t have to enable or ensure it, but sure as heck can’t stop it. (Of course, there will be cases where religion intersects with neutral laws, i.e. Santeria and animal cruelty, etc.)
Absolutely brilliant, in my book.
“yeah, they need serious political stability and basic macroeconomic policy going before being able to provide more esoteric form of freedom.”
Bullshit. I can name you a bunch of stable regimes that were absolute crap to live in because of the lack of recognition of “esoteric” rights. Monarchies are stable. Autocratic Dictatorships are stable. The socio-economic system of slavery was stable. The Soviet Union was stable. There is no reason not to address this now. I doubt you would argue people should shut up about free speech or freedom of religion until they basic macro-economic policy. In fact, if they did shut up they would be sure to get a policy that was oppressive. Same for the right to self determination which includes sexual freedom.
“yeah, they need serious political stability and basic macroeconomic policy going before being able to provide more esoteric form of freedom.”
I’m really having trouble making sense of this in a way that doesn’t make you an asshole. Maybe I missed something. The proposed policies have the following effects, that I know of:
* a permissive legal climate for women with regard to sexual and reproductive decisions.
* improved sexual and reproductive health education
* improved sexual and reproductive health care
Now, what exactly makes this such a low priority? What possible reason is there to wait? And what makes you think that the above policies would do anything but help with the other problems faced by the nation? Childhood malnutrition, for example, will be much less of a problem if women who can’t afford to support children (or more children) have access to birth control and safe abortions.
It’s not as if this is a really expensive item, either. A 20-page pamphlet for every student, and an hour or two of discussion with an educator for every class? Some birth control pills and RU486? (surgical abortions could pose a significant expense, it’s true, but those could be permitted-but-not-covered, perhaps.
Why should this be the last priority? Other than because the primary beneficiaries would be women, that is.
actually majority of “economic tiger” in the 60’s-90’s are quite repressive.
a) no free speech. (no meaningful mass media discourse, very limited)
b) major resource control (ownership, where money can and cannot go, what property can cannot be owned, foreign currency law, etc)
c) population control. (how many kids you can have, where one can create family, etc.)
South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, china, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. The countries achieved massive double digit economic growth because of that. (Citizens want free speech, try getting jailed. Be it religious freedom, against particular government social/economic policy, etc.)
Think of the entire nation becoming like “US military”, where Pentagon is the benevolent dictator arranging everything.
Specifically Ecuador, I really can’t say a thing. But I suspect those nice “constitution” is going to hit reality sooner or later and they have to make a choice.
(eg. what exactly is manifested in “happiness” in women, and what should the government provide? Is there budget? … etc)
—
So for eg. if a woman wants to have 5 kids, because that’s her sexual happiness. How will that square with other government policies? (eg. controlling population growth, more equitable distribution of scarce social service, etc.)
note: I haven’t read the “actual” legislative proposal Every news I read just mumbles about some general “happiness”, whatever that means.
————-
In fact, if they did shut up they would be sure to get a policy that was oppressive. Same for the right to self determination which includes sexual freedom.
It’s easy for us to talk like that. We can just blow up a nation and get oil and natural resource. (for eg. if we were india, sure as heck none of us will talk about this, and rather about how to feed population because grain price is exploding. Most women here would only have 10-12 grade education while busy feeding children, instead of talking about TV shows script.)
Nobody really cares about “freedom”. Everybody can talk about it. It’s the cost to make it happen that counts.
I don’t see we have to talk about either one or the other, they are both necessary. This is an absolutely false dichotomy. So far as I know women in India give a crap about self determination very much. What about the pink gang?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7068875.stm
What about Vandana Shiva?
http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/shiva.html
food and rights go together without one you aren’t going to get access to the other.
Claire May 7, 2008 at 12:48 pm
* a permissive legal climate for women with regard to sexual and reproductive decisions.
* improved sexual and reproductive health education
* improved sexual and reproductive health care
Now, what exactly makes this such a low priority?
I haven’t read the actual proposal. I am just guessing from BBC link. (specially the “happiness part”)
If it is general health care, sex education, women reproductive right. Why not pass a law, instead of writing it in the constitution, just like any other country? (again, don’t know much about Ecuador legal system) So the proposal must be something fundamental.
Ecuador doesn’t even have national health care and pension system. So that’s why I was wondering what is it they are trying to say.
at $3000 GDP/cap, what they need is basic infrastructure, hospital system, basic national education, legal system, (which probably all that will be covered) …
Again, my imagination. This constitutional proposal is more than basic issue you bring above. It’s something broad and esoteric. Otherwise, why would people be writing about it?
-
regarding women health. definitely. I think we are way pass time trying to build nation in term of “national security/military” and economic performance.
It’s time to actually make people happy, instead of shooting each other and fighting about owning things.
Our resident lite trolls have apparently never read lysistrata…
was wondering… which historical condition that constitution comes from (so I was right. it’s fairly unstable government.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador
Return to a new democracy
Elections were held in 1979 under a new Constitution. Jaime Roldós Aguilera was elected President, governing until May 24, 1981, when he died in a plane crash. By 1982, the government of Osvaldo Hurtado faced an economic crisis, characterized by high inflation, budget deficits, a falling currency, mounting debt service, and uncompetitive industries, leading to chronic government instability.
The 1984 presidential elections were narrowly won by León Febres Cordero Rivadeneira, of the Social Christian Party (PSC). During the first years of his administration, Febres-Cordero introduced free-market economic policies, took a strong stand against drug trafficking and terrorism, and pursued close relations with the United States. His tenure was marred by bitter wrangling with other branches of Government and his own brief kidnapping by elements of the military. A devastating earthquake in March 1987 interrupted oil exports and worsened the country’s economic problems.
Rodrigo Borja Cevallos of the Democratic Left (Izquierda Democrática or ID) party won the presidency in 1988, running in the runoff election against Abdalá Bucaram of the PRE. His government was committed to improving human rights protection and carried out some reforms, notably an opening of Ecuador to foreign trade. The Borja government concluded an accord leading to the disbanding of the small terrorist group, “¡Alfaro Vive, Carajo!” (”Alfaro Lives, Dammit!”) named after Eloy Alfaro. However, continuing economic problems undermined the popularity of the ID, and opposition parties gained control of Congress in 1990.
Many years of mismanagement, starting with the mishandling of the country’s debt during the 1970s military regime, had left the country essentially ungovernable. Since the mid 1990s, the government of Ecuador has been characterized by a weak executive branch that struggles to appease the ruling classes represented in the legislative and judiciary. The three democratically elected presidents during the period 1996-2006 all failed to finish their terms.
The emergence of the indigenous population (approximately 25 percent) as an active constituency has added to the democratic volatility of the country in recent years. The population have been motivated by government failures to deliver on promises of land reform, lower unemployment and provision of social services, and historical exploitation by the land-holding elite.
paul May 7, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Our resident lite trolls have apparently never read lysistrata…
let’s put it this way. That “obliterate Iran” comment? nobody makes a peep right?
What I am trying to say, people talk about this because it’s the hip thing to do. It reaffirms group-think, but has nothing to do with actual women well being.
give it few more years, when a president is in political trouble and he needs to blow up a country. (grenada, Panama, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Haiti, etc)… we’ll be happy to blow up Ecuador just the same. (women’s right or no women’s right)
We have long history effing up little country in latin america since the 60’s. Ecuador included. (nevermind larger megalomaniac project like Iran, Iraq, Burma, etc)
All these so called feminist bloggers who are loud about women’s right in Ecuador? They’ll be first to look the other way when the special force land in Ecuador helping a military junta.
Sure, you can take this as trollish comment. But take note what has happened in the past 5-6 months. If I am right, give me credit. (nobody has given me credit for Hillary saying “obliterate Iran” yet.)
“We have long history effing up little country in latin america since the 60’s. Ecuador included.”
Small correction: Norteamericanos have been “effing up” little countries in Latin America a hell of a lot longer than just since the ’60’s…
I present to you the United Fruit Company…
As I recall, there were also several serious efforts (unsuccessful), predating the Civil War, by powerful Southern slave owners to organize parts of Central America (and Cuba, parts of Mexico, parts of South America) as future slave states/countries to protect their “rights” to slave ownership…
Is there some award I can nominate this sentence for?
Oh yes, I’m sure we are all eager to write love letters to School of the Americas.
Claire May 7, 2008 at 12:48 pm
It’s not as if this is a really expensive item, either. A 20-page pamphlet for every student, and an hour or two of discussion with an educator for every class? Some birth control pills and RU486? (surgical abortions could pose a significant expense, it’s true, but those could be permitted-but-not-covered, perhaps.
ok, here is a good concrete example:
Ecuador GDP/cap is $3000 you want to talk about giving student pamphlet for every student? At what cost? What level of literacy and is it effective spending on health care education? ..etc.
RU486, are you mad? 3 pill regime is ~$200 bucks. That’s almost 10% of annual GDP. (that’s like $4500 a pop pill in term of US GDP)
Look at your number. It doesn’t make sense. You are assuming everybody is living in upper east side.
How would all those affect other national priority budget? (not that I ever manage national budget, but I bet Ecuador can’t afford RU-486 as part of national health care… if they have national health care at all.)
I went to college with Gretchen (the artist whose work is shown here). She was a grad student while I was an undergrad. I even own some of her work.
How do you know her, Amanda?
You’re right. Drug companies do sell drugs at US prices world-wide, because that’s a business model that works. Also, all countries respect drug patents, which is too bad, because that would render the going price of the drug from the pharmaceutical company pretty irrelevant.
Whereas raising a kid to productive adulthood costs nothing at all, and failing to spend that money imposes no cost on the economy whatsoever.
One of the things that the people opposing this statement of sexual rights for women don’t get is how thoroughly intertwined sexual justice and real economic progress are. Without the former, you can’t effectively invest in the human capital of half your effing population, and that just plays hob with the latter.
You can’t guarantee happiness, but you can guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Same with sexual pleasure, I would think.
It makes sense to constitutionally guarantee female sexual pleasure as a right to pursue something without being thwarted by the government for no good reason.
Hm… I’m thinking about how I’d feel in the alternate scenarios of 1) A constitutional provision gauranteeing the right to enjoy sexual happiness to all people, without specifying which sex, 2) a constitutional provision gauranteeing the right to enjoy sexual happiness to men, specifically, and 3) a constitutional provision gauranteeing the right to enjoy sexual happiness to both men and women, explicitly specifying both sexes.
I suppose that #1 is one I’m most comfortable with, but I guess I wouldn’t be inclined to put it in a constitution. I guess I’m inclined to view the constitution as a legal document laying down the basic operational principles of the government, not primarily a platform for declaring rather open-ended principles. That’s probably my American bias speaking, though, since we Americans have an extremely short constitution by international standards (and one whose lack of specificity can get us into trouble).
#2 creeps me out, I think. Saying men have a right to enjoy sexual happiness seems to be interprettable in some rather bad ways. Or so it seems to me. I suppose if we just specify it means that, for instance, condoms shouldn’t be prohibited, and other onerous burdens on male sexuality to reduce them to some status as inseminators without other legitimate non-fertility oriented sexual desires, then that’s okay. Still, the idea of a constitutional provision gauranteeing men the right to enjoy sexual happiness draws a viscerally negative reaction from me.
#3, I suppose, is between #1 and #2 for me.
Lindsay Beyerstein May 7, 2008 at 9:50 pm
It makes sense to constitutionally guarantee female sexual pleasure as a right to pursue something without being thwarted by the government for no good reason.
yeah…. then we are back to basic justice question. What exactly is “good” reason?
Is it responsible for a government to “force” women/family to only have two children, in exchange for national prosperity/growth.
Or forcing woman to take certain modern medical procedure, stop certain traditional practice. Something that usually makes people unhappy but with positive health result. etc.
My point
a) I don’t know what’s going on with Ecuador constitution rewrite. My suspicion, this is just some media hype trying to fill slow news day. But the actual constitution is much more complicated and mundane. (basic rewrite of citizenship, national security, relationship of executive-legislative, budget, national priority, stuff like that) “sexual pleasure” or whatever, is just some random noise.
b) Ecuador historical and economical context doesn’t seem to support a condition remotely close to what people are talking here when it comes to women’s right. (sexual pleasure?) I bet they are talking about things far basic. (citizenship, identity, right under law, health care, etc)
c) I don’t know how the new proposal will compare to older one, but I bet in term of real change it’s minimal. I doubt the older one say “women should not have sexual pleasure” (ie. without actual national health care and education system, all those talk about women “pleasure” is nonsense. Since there is no way to inform and provide women with those actual right.) They don’t seem to be in position to deliver them, from their GDP.
That’s like saying to a woman in the remote mountain outpost. You are now more free to enjoy sex. Good day. (How does that change anything? She needs health care and education for her and her family. Actual government social service.)
http://www.pr-inside.com/ecuador-considers-enshrining-women-s-right-r561760.htm
President Rafael Correa’s party and sits on a committee defining fundamental constitutional rights, said women have traditionally been seen as sexual objects or in a solely reproductive role in Ecuador.
On Monday, Vela said the right to sexual enjoyment means ensuring women can make free, responsible and informed decisions about their sex lives.
Fellow committee members proposed separate provisions for women’s sexual and reproductive rights, an alternative Vela approved.
Ecuador cosntitution (old ones, spanish)
pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/ecuador.html
Amanda:
I don’t think the Danes are taking the stance that the disabled have the right of access to other people’s bodies. But where they have already decided, as a society, that sex work is legitimate work, this guy is making the case that it should be one of the services whose costs are covered by government disability programs.
If Denmark decided that emptying bedpans was beneath the dignity of citizens of a free and democratic society, the disabled would be out of luck, because there would be nobody the government could pay to empty their bedpans. But since that service is available on the market, the government is willing to cover its costs for the disabled. I’m having a hard time seeing how this is categorically different from sex work.
Well, I think the problem is that if you accept that prostitution is just a sexual service, then it makes sense. Most people don’t care, however, if the bedpan is emptied by a man or a woman, but the gender of a prostitute is very important indeed. Contrary to the romantic views of the hooker of a heart of gold and the unfuckable john, however, the vast majority of interactions between john and prostitute are about reenacting male domination.
I was made to understand that legalizing prostitution was not an endorsement of male domination, but harm reduction. Paying for men to have prostitutes changes that.
Plus, it’s unfair. Why entitle men to sexual partners and leave women out? Women have disabilities, too, you know, and they would be left flapping in the wind. These kind of schemes are built around the idea that male sexuality is about desiring, and female sexuality is about being fucked, and a woman who isn’t getting volunteers to fuck her is somehow considered not a sexual being at all, which is untrue.
Why is sexuality less important than religion? Than speech? I think sexual expression is an important part of autonomy.
And even our own short constitution establishes some broad principles. Like equal protection of the laws, freedom of religion, liberty (in the sense that it cannot be taken without due process of law).
Why treat sexual self-actualization like it is a dirty joke, or unworthy of recognition, even though it is such a central part of many (if not most) people’s lives?
We read all these glossies about how we can get more, get better at it, keep our spark alive, blah, blah, we are obsessed with sex and seeminingly unwilling, much of the time, to engage with our obsession in any kind of grown-up fashion.
Amanda:
Contrary to the romantic views of the hooker of a heart of gold and the unfuckable john, however, the vast majority of interactions between john and prostitute are about reenacting male domination.
I don’t disagree with you, and I should make it clear that I find the Danish man’s campaign a bit much. Still, I am very much interested in the question of what a right to sexual pleasure would look like in practice in an ideal world. I am interested, for example, in the problematic questions surrounding sexual pleasure for people who cannot meaningfully consent to sex (e.g. the severely mentally retarded).
Plus, it’s unfair. Why entitle men to sexual partners and leave women out?
I didn’t read this subtext into the story at all; I assumed that women would be equally entitled to some form of sexual service.
You’re right, of course, that it’s a mistake to frame prostitution as a gender-neutral service given its patriarchal context. But it seems to me that it is also a mistake to adopt the opposite position that no such exchange of money for services can ever be anything but unacceptably exploitative of women. I think Mackinnon takes this argument to its logical conclusion quite well, but her conclusion leaves us all at a fairly meaningless impasse: if anyone (straight) ever wants to get laid, ever, we have to put Mackinnon’s arguments to the side and accept that sex is messy and problematic but is worth engaging in anyway. I think the same case can be made for prostitution in some circumstances.
Contrary to the romantic views of the hooker of a heart of gold and the unfuckable john, however, the vast majority of interactions between john and prostitute are about reenacting male domination.
Ahem:
“Most people would be surprised to learn that with 75 per cent of jobs, the girl never ended up having sex with the client. Some clients just wanted to talk, while others were content with a massage or spa.
“It’s not always about the sex. There are other ways men like to be satisfied,” Lacey said.
Some people also had the view that working girls catered for only the desperate and dateless, Lacey said. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
During the day, the club catered mostly for retirees and businessmen looking for “a physical release” after a long boozy lunch. During the evening the club attracted a wide range of age groups, from young partygoers to labourers and executives.”
You could argue that any paid relationship is about domination, but this would seem more a socialist rather than a feminist critique.
Plus, it’s unfair. Why entitle men to sexual partners and leave women out?
Why indeed? Do you believe Denmark would say “yes” to paying for a disabled man to get laid, and say “no” to a woman making the same request? Denmark?