- 06 May 2017 04:12
#14802612
Someone brought up a point to me about the idea that there should be a right to sexuality. Which after some discussion, sounded like that they didn't advocate that the state should be providing sexual services to people, but thought that people shouldn't be denied the means to have sex. So presumably that would mean, creating the substantive means for people to express themselves sexually within socially appropriate means.
And another person brought up that they didn't think it was a human rights abuse that prisoners weren't having sex in the same way that if they were deprived of safety, water, food or what ever. Which made me think of this article, Conjugal visits: The woman who wants Australian prisons to let love in. As it is the case that prisoners are denied avenues of sex with those outside the prison. Which does seem to come under the sense that humans are being deprived of the means to sexually express themselves. At the same time, the nature of imprisonment is that they forgo certain rights as a consequence of being imprisoned. And that whilst the state wouldn't necessarily provide sexual services to prisoners, it does cost the tax payer to provide the means for them to privately get their fuck on. But if sexual expression is seen as something quite important to humans, then it can seem overly punitive to simply outright deny people the means to have consensual sex with their lovers. And that it seems some would argue that if we're not in the business of simply being pricks to prisoners, then helping prisoners to maintain relationships and bonds is of some significance.
What are your thoughts on the matter of the state providing the means for prisoners to have sex?
And another person brought up that they didn't think it was a human rights abuse that prisoners weren't having sex in the same way that if they were deprived of safety, water, food or what ever. Which made me think of this article, Conjugal visits: The woman who wants Australian prisons to let love in. As it is the case that prisoners are denied avenues of sex with those outside the prison. Which does seem to come under the sense that humans are being deprived of the means to sexually express themselves. At the same time, the nature of imprisonment is that they forgo certain rights as a consequence of being imprisoned. And that whilst the state wouldn't necessarily provide sexual services to prisoners, it does cost the tax payer to provide the means for them to privately get their fuck on. But if sexual expression is seen as something quite important to humans, then it can seem overly punitive to simply outright deny people the means to have consensual sex with their lovers. And that it seems some would argue that if we're not in the business of simply being pricks to prisoners, then helping prisoners to maintain relationships and bonds is of some significance.
What are your thoughts on the matter of the state providing the means for prisoners to have sex?
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
-For Ethical Politics