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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.