Autistic Man who does not understand consent has right to pursue sex, court rules - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15039795
Sex is not a human right, like the retarded Judge in this story believes.

ness31 wrote:Imagine a world without sex. What kind of world would it be?


Boring, probably, and people-less, soon enough. :excited:

But nobody is owed sex. People aren't going to die if they don't get laid, you can see this from a lot of the posters ITT and on this board who still are here. Thanks for asking.
#15039801
Sex is not a human right, like the retarded Judge in this story believes.


I think you are right.

But perhaps someone could argue that "sex with anyone specifically is not a human right". Maybe people do have the right to have sex with whomever is willing and able to give informed consent. It doesn't matter though. The fact remains that this judge has endorsed the actions of a potential sexual predator. That is outrageous.
#15039819
Rancid wrote:What would be the difference between a human need and a right?


Assume Human need does not require further definition, a Right is your eligibility to fulfill certain Human need of yours, either not in breach of other people's said eligibility, or as a result of consent with other people who are in competition to said eligibility.
#15040545
Sexualization of a culture is oppressive, is a symbol of patriarchy, and makes people more socially competitive, which is a symbol of social alienation.

It is disgusting that some men, especially sexist, right winged men, (and liberals), have the mentality that "They can get that girl," Or "How many girls can he get?" Men having the mentality to 'play' women is alienating because it makes the men who get less sexual activity "losers" which is a social construct, and the men who get more women "winners." Any woman who desires a man who treats women like shit by "playing them" are traitors to feminism.

There is no "pro sex feminism." "Pro sex feminists" socially reward men who play women, while have no support for men who don't play women because "they can't get them because they are not successful." That full fills the masculine player mentality, thus going against recognizing women as human beings rather than sexual objects or toys.

Liberalism is very anti feminist. Liberal "feminism" promotes sexual competition, alienation of men who cannot get women, and prostitution, which is sexual slavery! Liberal "feminism" produces sexual slavery/prostitution, alienation of the sexes, and the very anti feminist "Incel" community. The "Incel" community was collectively known from young, liberal, American Bourgeoisie people. "Incels" are the product of "liberal feminism," which itself is anti feminist. "Men Going Their Own Way" is another anti feminist product that reacted to the anti feminist politics of "liberal feminism." "Vox," which is an American liberal enterprise, demonstrates this example:

"In the late 1990s, a lonely teenager on the West Coast fired up his dial-up modem to find someone to talk to. He was a shy kid, too introverted to feel fully comfortable in the real world, and he logged on to the early internet’s bare-bones web forums for a sense of connection. There he found friends: other people who were awkward in real life, particularly when it came to sex and dating."

"The real world" is a capitalist social construct full of sexualization of women, alienation of men via socially masculine competition, and valuing people according to their personal wealth, which goes against the heart of a human, since that makes people corrupt. "Awkward in like, when it came to sex and dating." This is an example of capitalist culture. Skilled "dating" is socially alienative and competitive. Having humans bond a certain way via social constructs is judgmental, and enforces capitalist social constructs. "When it came to sex" - This quotation makes women look like sexual objects, rather than human beings.

"one where men who didn’t know how to talk to women could ask the community’s female members for advice (and vice versa). It was, he told me, “kind of an SJW [social justice warrior] community."

"Did not know how to talk to women" is a sexist viewpoint that makes women look socially different than men, via capitalist social constructs. "Incels" are "Social Justice Warriors" of the far right of whom are the reactionary products of the liberal politics that goes against feminism, since liberal "feminism" is not really feminism due to making women look like sex objects and making men more competitive, which is a symbol of social alienation.

Another liberal feminist enterprise from the States that has their own English texted website, "bitchmedia" goes against feminism:

"Incels divide the rest of the world into “Chads” (conventionally attractive men who are seen as sexually successful), “Stacys” (hyperfeminine, conventionally attractive women), and “Beckys” (“normal” women)."

Everything states within the parenthesis is "bitchmedia's" viewpoints on "Incels'" categories of people. From a real feminist point of view, "Chads" are men who view women as sexual objects, who play women like objects, and who are socially competitive. They alienate men who are not "players" like them. "Stacys" are anti feminist women who submit to men, portray capitalist social constructs of submissive women, and tend to lack labour capabilities, so they can rely on men economically. The toxic masculinity that "Incels" produce are the reactionary product of liberal "feminism," which is anti feminist. "bitchmedia" is an American anti feminist website.

Anyone who sexualizes society or culture, like "Incels" or "liberal feminists" are enemies to feminism and justice.
#15044638
Why yes. Even if human rights, by nature, are universal, and anything surrounding sex is not universally agreed upon and thus rather poorly addressed by human rights, sex by itself is clearly a human right.

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declara ... an-rights/

It can be concluded from article 12 (privacy and home), which covers a lot of other basic operations of life as well (like the right for access to a bathroom for your basic body operations), and also from article 16 (marriage).

Thus you indirectly definitely have the right for sex with yourself, aka masturbation, under human rights, as well as sex with another person if said person gives consent, simply because you're not allowed to be monitored in your own home, and you're not violating any human right of the other person.

However, there is no human right of having sex with any other person without consent. Such an act is called rape and rape violates pretty much all the most basic human rights of the victim, as defined in article 1 to 5.

Rape, as an act of violence to a person, violates article 1, specifically the "brotherhood" (i.e. solidarity) of all mankind.
Rape, being an act of violence, also most likely endangers life and health of a person, which violates article 3, the right for life and security of person.
Rape, being an act of degredation of a person, violates article 1 (human dignity) as well as article 5 (no inhuman or degredading treatment of people).
Rape, being an act of disregard of a persons right in favor of another persons interests, and act of deprivation of liberty, and an act of temporary ownership of a person by another person, violates article 2, 3 and 4.
Rape of a woman by a man also potentially endangers her to become pregnant, with has further repercussions, which are, due to the universal nature of human rights, not universally agreed upon and thus not properly addressed by human rights. It could for example be seen as another case of violation of security of person, if one would agree upon that changes to your body cannot be done to do without your consent, excluding cases when it serves your health and wellbeing and you're unable to give or refuse consent (such as after a serious accident).

I also cannot see any basis for a general right to have a sexual partner. How would such a right even be constructed ? You dont have the right to sex with any specific person, so how could you possibly have the right for having a person that has sex with you ?

For example the general human right for private ownership of things doesnt mean you are guaranteed the ownership of a car, either. And cars are even things, not people, so in that case you can conclude that realistically, since human rights guarantees you a decent enough income, you will sooner or later be able to afford a car if you want one, at least if you live in a country with at least a modest level of industrialization.

No such luck with people, for unlike things you cannot own and thus also not buy them, since that would be slavery.

Thus, if you cannot find somebody who gives consent, you are out of luck. You wont have a sexpartner.
#15044812
I really do hate the media when they make up stuff.

This man wants a girlfriend and the judge decided he had the right to try and find one.

The reasons for preventing it weren't good enough.

You may or may not agree with that decision seeing as the man doesn't understand about consent, but neither do loads of other men.

I can remember a little while arguing on this very forum that agreeing to go to man's place of residence was not consenting to sex. I was gobsmacked to find out how many members honestly believed it was.

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I don't really have enough information.
#15045467
snapdragon wrote:You may or may not agree with that decision seeing as the man doesn't understand about consent, but neither do loads of other men.


... wtf ?

snapdragon wrote:I can remember a little while arguing on this very forum that agreeing to go to man's place of residence was not consenting to sex. I was gobsmacked to find out how many members honestly believed it was.


... WTF ???? :eek: :eek: :eek:
#15045493
Snapdragon wrote:
I can remember a little while arguing on this very forum that agreeing to go to man's place of residence was not consenting to sex. I was gobsmacked to find out how many members honestly believed it was.


I think the confusion is in the shades of gray here. (No pun intended.)

It is one thing to "go to a man's place of residence" at three PM to see a football game or just hang out. It is quite another to close a bar with a man you just met and go to his house at 3AM. While I will always grant that no means no, you have to admit that it is reasonable to assume that the 3AM visit has different signaling than does the 3PM one.

Add to this the effects of both parties drinking and you have the kind of situation where a reasonable judge might see the two differently.

With this young man you have someone whose judgment level is inconsistent with allowing (indeed encouraging) him to have sexual partners.

I mentioned it earlier but here we go again. If someone like this young man, with his problems determining right and wrong, wished to buy a handgun who would support allowing him to do it? Clearly US law would not. He could easily be prohibited from buying a gun. And rightfully so.

Presumably he has the right under US law to have sex with a willing partner and he has the right to own a gun. What he does not have is the right to threaten someone with said gun so......?
#15045836
snapdragon wrote:I can remember a little while arguing on this very forum that agreeing to go to man's place of residence was not consenting to sex. I was gobsmacked to find out how many members honestly believed it was.

Was that the one where a woman complained that a celebrity, "missed all my negative social cues," after giving him a series of positive social cues? I don't remember the exact details but didn't she take off her clothes and do sexual stuff and then take offense to being kissed?
#15046695
Drlee wrote:We will be replaced by machines. And they will invent sex for themselves.

It has already happened , as a matter of fact . https://globalnews.ca/news/3576751/android-love-dolls-experts-warn-of-growing-sextech-market/ , https://wiredbugs.com/sex-doll-brothels-facts/ , https://www.huffpost.com/entry/robot-love_n_1274504 So even if sex were to be considered an individual human right , it doesn't necessarily mean that it must involve the participation of another person .
#15046886
Well, as I described above, sex with oneself or between consenting adults is pretty much already a human right, due to being indirectly covered by the human right for privacy and the right of an own home.

Because there is no explicit human right for the bathroom, either, even if this is an absolute necessity for any human being, but again this is covered by the right for privacy and the right of an own home.

Thats at least how I would interpret it, anyway.

My son and his new bride decided to honeymoon in […]

^^^ The following could have been written about ma[…]

Positively brilliant!!!!!! :lol: The fact that t[…]

Undocumented Aliens and Crime

I won, I am happy. I win, I am the winner....ye[…]